DATE: November 7, 2003

----------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JAMES A. YOUNG

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Marc Curry, Esq., Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

SYNOPSIS

Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations although his personal financial statement reveals he has a positive cash flow. Applicant paid several debts in the month preceding his hearing. He claims he will pay off several of his remaining debts in the amount of $2,600 in the next 60 days by cutting back and watching where his money goes, but he has no liquid assets and he will still owe two debts totaling over $3,000. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On 18 August 2003, under the applicable Executive Order ⁽¹⁾ and Department of Defense Directive, ⁽²⁾ DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing the basis for its decision-security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Directive. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on 29 August 2003 and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on 16 September 2003. On 15 October 2003, I convened a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding on 23 October 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 28-year-old veteran who served eight years in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his last deployment, his wife failed to take care of all of the bills. After returning from the deployment and separating from the Marine Cops, Applicant was unemployed for three months. This aggravated his financial situation.

An agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) interviewed Applicant in June of 2002. At the time, Applicant claimed that his income exceeded his expenses by some $1,200 a month and that he was making every effort to pay his debts. Ex. 2 at 5. In June 2003, Applicant submitted answers to financial interrogatories that showed he was still in debt despite the family income exceeding his monthly expenses by $1,700. Ex. 4 at 5.

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527. The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified information to United States citizens "whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information." Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive.

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personal security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an applicant's security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.

CONCLUSIONS

In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant had several delinquent debts (¶ 1.a. - 1.e. and 1.g. - 1.h.) and had his trailer home repossessed (¶ 1.f.). An Applicant who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Directive ¶ E2.A6.1.1.

The Government evidence and Applicant's admissions establish by substantial evidence that Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations (DC E2.A6.1.2.1.) and is unable or unwilling to satisfy his debts (DC E2.A6.1.2.3). Applicant claims to have paid off three of his delinquent debts (¶¶ 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e.). But he waited until just before the hearing to pay these debts and has no receipts or other documents to corroborate the payments. He claims he has arranged payment plans with several of his other creditors to the tune of $2,600 in less than 60 days, yet he provided no corroboration of the agreements and he lists no liquid assets on his June 2003 financial statement that would lead one to conclude he is able to make these payments. Id. Even accepting his representations of having paid off the delinquencies that are the subject of ¶¶ 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e., Applicant failed to convince me his financial problems will not persist for some time to come.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant

DECISION

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 or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

James A. Young

Administrative Judge

1. Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.

2. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.