1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00963 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________ Decision ______________ CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On August 26, 2015, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for employment with a defense contractor. (Item 3) A security investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interviewed Applicant on December 9, 2015. (Item 4) After reviewing the results of the OPM investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. On June 24, 2016, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. (Item 1) The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 2 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006. On June 8, 2017, new AGs were implemented and are effective for decisions issued after that date.1 Applicant answered the SOR on July 1, 2016, admitting the nine allegations of delinquent debt under Guideline F. She elected to have the matter decided on the written record. (Item 2) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on August 9, 2016. (Item 7) Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on August 24, 2016. She was provided the opportunity to file objections and to submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. I was assigned the case on June 1, 2017. Procedural Issues Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject Interview (PSI) with an OPM investigator (Item 4) was not authenticated and could not be considered over her objection. She was further advised that she could make any corrections, additions, or deletions to the summary to make it clear and accurate, and could object to the admission of the summary as not authenticated by a Government witness. She was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the summary, the Administrative Judge could determine that she waived any objection to the admissibility of the PSI summary. Applicant did not respond to the FORM, so she did not raise any objection to consideration of the PSI. Since there is no objection by Applicant, I will consider information in the PSI in my decision. Findings of Fact After thoroughly reviewing the case file, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 52 years old. She graduated from high school in June 1983, and received a bachelor’s degree in 2010. Applicant married in September 1984 and divorced in June 1986. She married again in August 1997 and was widowed in December 2005. She has not remarried. She has one child and a stepchild. Applicant has been employed in various administrative and operational positions mainly in the medical field. She has been employed as an operations associate by a DOD contractor since November 2014. Applicant worked for the same company as an administrative coordinator from February 1996 until March 2011. She then relocated her family and found employment in her field. In July 2013, she accepted a job offer but it was rescinded before she started work due to changes in the company. She was then unemployed. She worked at a minimum wage job until November 2013 when she accepted employment with another company. She left that company in November 2014. The contract she worked under ended in August 2015. She was unemployed from August 2015 until January 2016 when she started working in her present position. 1 I considered the previous AGs, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new AGs, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case were considered under the previous AGs. 3 The SOR alleges, and credit reports (Item 5, dated June 1, 2016; Item 6, dated September 19, 2015) confirm the following delinquent debts for Applicant: medical debts in collection for $130 (SOR 1.a), $60 (SOR 1.b), $244 (SOR 1.c),$157 (SOR 1.d), and $77 (SOR 1.i); two credit card debts in collection for $532 (SOR 1. e), and $468 (SOR 1.f); a repossessed car debt for $5,403 (SOR 1.g); and student loans in collection for approximately $40,293. The total amount of delinquent debt is approximately $47,364. The majority of the debt is from student loans. The credit reports show that the debts became delinquent in the last few years, most starting in 2011. This was the time period she reported that she was unemployed and underemployed. Applicant listed the delinquent student loans and repossessed car debt on the e- QIP. In the PSI, Applicant acknowledged these debts as well as the credit card and medical debts. She reported that her financial problems started shortly after the death of her husband in 2005. The periods of unemployment she experienced contributed to her financial problems. In the PSI, she stated that her financial situation was more stable. She now has medical benefits, so she did not anticipate additional medical debts. (Item 3, PSI, at 4-6 In her response to the SOR, Applicant attributes much of her delinquent debts to underemployment, unemployment, and lack of medical benefits. She wrote that she has been paying her medical debts and anticipated resolving them shortly after she submitted her response. She also stated she was making payment arrangement for the credit card debts. She reported that she has been in communication with the car loan creditor and would start making payments under a payment plan shortly. As for her student loans, she stated that she made payments in a student loan forgiveness program, brought the accounts current, and would start making regular payments in May 2016. Applicant did not provide any documents to verify the claims of payments or effort to resolve the debts that she made in her PSI or SOR responses. She did not present any documents to verify that she contacted creditors to make payment or settlement arrangements. She did not provide any evidence or receipts for her efforts to pay, settle, compromise, dispute, or otherwise resolve any of the delinquent debts. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 4 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified and sensitive information) Analysis Financial Considerations Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. (AG ¶ 18) An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 5 A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to meet her financial obligations. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is required to manage his or her finances in such a way as to meet financial obligations. Credit reports reveal, and Applicant admitted, that she has delinquent medical, credit card, student loan, and car loan debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise security concerns under Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19: (a) inability to satisfy debts, (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. The information raises issues about Applicant’s willingness and ability to meet her financial obligations. Once the Government has established the adverse financial issue, the Applicant has the responsibility to refute or mitigate the issue. I considered the following Financial Consideration Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 20: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible sources, such as a non-profit credit counselling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and (d) the individual has initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. The mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant’s debts are numerous, recent, and were not incurred under circumstances making recurrence unlikely. The debts are normal consumer, medical, and student loan debts. Applicant had periods of 6 unemployment and underemployment. In her response to the SOR, however, Applicant did not provide sufficient information to explain how these events led to the delinquent debts. In addition, Applicant claims to have made payments on and resolved most of her medical debts, that she was making payment arrangements for the credit card debts, and that her student loans were current. She claimed to be negotiating a payment arrangement on the delinquent car loan. Applicant was advised by Department Counsel in the FORM that she needed to provide proof of her claims of payment or resolution of the debts. She has not documented her plans to resolve her financial problems or her claimed efforts to pay and resolve her delinquent debts. She also did not provide information concerning financial counseling. Accordingly, she has not established a good-faith effort to pay her debts. Applicant has been gainfully employed since at least November 2013. She seems to have the ability to resolve her delinquent debts. However, she has not acted responsibly because she has not provided information on her plans to pay her delinquent debts. There is no clear evidence that her debt problems have been resolved. Her finances are not under control. Overall, she has not provided evidence or proof that she acted with reason and responsibility towards her finances. Her lack of documented actions to resolve her financial problems are a strong indication that she may not protect and safeguard classified information. In sum, Applicant did not present sufficient information to mitigate financial security concerns. Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for access to classified information must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant failed to provide her plan to pay her delinquent debts. In requesting an administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the written record. In so doing, she failed to supplement the record with 7 relevant and material facts regarding her financial circumstances; to adequately articulate her positions; and to provide facts to mitigate the financial security concerns. In short, the file lacks sufficient evidence provided by Applicant to establish that she paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, disputed, or otherwise resolved her delinquent accounts. The record lacks corroborating or substantial documents and details to explain her finances. I am unable to determine that Applicant reasonably and responsibly managed her finances and that her finances are under control because Applicant failed to provide documents to verify the appropriate management of her finance and actions to resolve financial issues. In short, Applicant did not demonstrate appropriate management of her finances and a consistent record of action to resolve financial issues. Her lack of demonstrated financial action is a firm indication that she may not adequately safeguard classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts concerning Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. She has not established her suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate financial security concerns. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.i: Against Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. _________________ THOMAS M. CREAN Administrative Judge