DATE: February 20, 2007

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 37-year-old special police officer employed by a federal contractor. She accumulated delinquent debts while rasing four children as a single person. She changed jobs to get more income, but some jobs provided no medical insurance. She paid down 62% of her debts. She also partially answered a question and gave a false answer on another question on a security clearance application, but did not intentionally try to mislead the government. She successfully mitigated security concerns about financial considerations and personal conduct. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan. 2, 1960), as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 6, 2006, detailing the basis for its decision - security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 19, 2006, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 6, 2006. The Notice of Hearing was issued on November 15, 2006. I convened a hearing on December 7, 2006, to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The government offered five exhibits, marked as exhibits 1-5. Applicant offered thirteen exhibits, marked as exhibits A-M. I kept the record open until December 29, 2006, to allow Applicant time to file additional documents. On December 29, 2006, Department Counsel received Applicant's fax consisting of 16 documents, which I marked as Applicant's Exhibits N through CC, inclusive. The government filed a memorandum on January 3, 2007, making no objection to their admission, but setting out several notations about Exhibits O, U, W, Y, Z, AA, and BB. Applicant's Exhibits N - CC are admitted. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 18, 2006.

Applicant denied all allegations contained in the SOR. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following findings of fact:

Applicant is a 37-year-old special police officer employed by a federal contractor. ⁽¹⁾ She is married and has four biological children and three step-children. ⁽²⁾ She is a high school graduate, and has no prior military service. She has held a security clearance since 1991. ⁽³⁾

Financial Considerations

Applicant's financial problems arose because of raising four children as a single parent, and because the children needed significant medical procedures. ⁽⁴⁾ She held seven different jobs between January 1994 and April 2004, ⁽⁵⁾ attempting to better her income to take care of her family. ⁽⁶⁾ She stated:

If I would see something in the paper and its paying more money and it's in the line of work that I do, then I applied for it. And if I get hired, I take it and that's because, okay. It may be two dollars or an hour but, to make two dollars more an hour is a lot when you're struggling and you're not having any help from the fathers on a regular basis or not at all. So, that's how I got into debt, probably because not receiving child support and trying it all on my own. ⁽⁷⁾

Sometimes she had insurance, when she could afford it; at other times she did not, because she could not pay the costs. ⁽⁸⁾ The fathers were under child support orders. Some paid, some did not. She has had to file with a state child support enforcement agency to assist getting support from one father. ⁽⁹⁾ On November 6, 2005, she had the following unpaid debts listed in the SOR:

These debts total $10,142. She has tried without success to contact the hospital to which she owes $1,848. The tax lien is under a settlement agreement. She has paid 62% of her debts. ⁽²⁴⁾ She does not have a credit card. ⁽²⁵⁾

Personal Conduct

Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated April 21, 2004, and re-signed on June 28, 2004. ⁽²⁶⁾

In response to the following, Question 38. Your financial delinquencies - 180 days In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?, she answered "Yes," listing hospital bills totaling $1,904. She did not specify these or any other debts listed in Table 1, above. ⁽²⁷⁾

In response to the following, Question 39. Your financial delinquencies - 90 days Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?, she answered "No," knowing that she had the debts listed in the answer to question 38. ⁽²⁸⁾

Applicant told the person administering the application that she was not sure if she had noted everything because she didn't have a credit report. The administrator said, "Don't worry about it, the company is going to pull the credit report." ⁽²⁹⁾ If she had insurance, it was usually through her employer, and statements and billings went to the company insurance administrator. ⁽³⁰⁾

You don't need a credit report to know, but if I'm paying bills that to me are my usual daily bills like electric, gas, water, phone, cable, child care, and insurance, car note and stuff like that, and if I'm not used to getting a hospital bill and regular every month, then I'm basically not going to remember to pay the hospital bill, if I'm not used to receiving a hospital bill on a monthly basis like regular bills that I have. I cannot correct what I've done in the past and the mistakes that I've made in the past. All I can do now is correct my mistakes and move on and try to make it better so that I can teach my children to do the right thing and pay their bills. ⁽³¹⁾

POLICIES

"No one has a 'right' to a security clearance." ⁽³²⁾ 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." ⁽³³⁾ The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information "only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." ⁽³⁴⁾ Each security clearance decision "must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy." ⁽³⁵⁾

An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." ⁽³⁶⁾

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel 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: nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; frequency and recency of the conduct; age of the Applicant; motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, wilful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences involved; absence or presence of rehabilitation; and probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. ⁽³⁷⁾ It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial Considerations

The government established its case under Guideline F. Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1. arises where there is A history of not meeting financial obligations. Similarly, FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3. applies where the information shows an Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. The available information demonstrates Applicant has a history of not meeting her financial obligations. She has been delinquent in payments on numerous accounts.

Various conditions can mitigate the security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The Directive sets out Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) E2.A6.1.3.3. (The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation). Applicant's debts were mostly medically related. She was attempting to raise four children as a single person. Her different job changes to improve her income sometimes meant she had no health insurance. Child support was almost non-existent. She now has a new husband and one step-son living with her.

The DOHA Appeal Board stated:

Given the wording of FC MC E2.A6.1.3.3., it is not unreasonable to construe it as covering a situation where the record evidence shows that events beyond an applicant's control resulted in, or significantly contributed to the applicant's debts becoming delinquent, the applicant becoming unable to deal with or otherwise address debts that had become delinquent previously, and the applicant incurring new, unforeseen debts that aggravate or exacerbate the applicant's financial situation. ⁽³⁸⁾

The facts of this case is what the Appeal Board was talking about. Events not contemplated by an applicant that occur causing financial hardships, and intermittently reoccurring to exacerbate the situation. These unforeseen events compounded with negative consequences on Applicant's ability to keep up with her finances. FC MC E2.A6.1.3.3. applies.

FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4. (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) does not apply as there is no evidence of Applicant seeking financial counseling.

FC MC E2.A6.1.3.6. (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve bad debts) is applicable. Applicant reduced her indebtedness by 62% as shown in the December 2006 credit report. She has about $3,900 of unpaid debts left, one of them for $1,848 is to an unknown creditor, which even the credit reporting agency could not locate. She has done and is doing what can reasonably be expected to pay off her debts. I conclude Guideline F for Applicant.

Personal Conduct

The government established its case under Guideline E. Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2. (The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities) applies.

Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC) E2.A5.1.3.2. (The falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct information voluntarily) applies. Applicant listed two medical debts but did not further itemize or list specific creditors. She had no credit report before her and when she asked the administrator, she was told not to worry about it. It has been almost three years since she signed the application. Applicant has otherwise answered all questions correctly and completely.

Also applicable is PC MC E2.A5.1.3.4. (Omission of material facts was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel, and the previously omitted information was promptly and fully provided.) Applicant was concerned because she did not have her credit report in front of her when answering the questions on her SF 86. She asked the supervising person about it and was told not to worry because the company would obtain a copy. She assumed that her answer was sufficient. When told that she had not provided adequate information, she promptly gave the correct information. I do not find her conduct to be deliberate. I conclude Guideline E for Applicant.

Whole Person Analysis

"The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance." ⁽³⁹⁾

"Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination." ⁽⁴⁰⁾

In evaluating Applicant's case, in addition to the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I also considered the "whole person" concept in evaluating Applicant's risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. ⁽⁴¹⁾ I considered her age (37), her education, the causes of her financial problems, and the reasons she gave incorrect answers on her security clearance application. Applicant made substantial progress in reducing her debt (62%). The majority of her delinquencies were for medical expenses, reflective of her intermittent lack of medical insurance as she changed jobs frequently. It also is significant that she has raised four children as a single person. With her marriage in 2006, she has been able to pay down her indebtedness. This demonstrates a good-faith effort to pay her creditors.

Applicant's partially correct answer on her security clearance application may be problematic because candor with the government about a person's negatives is the crux of a security suitability determination. If a person discloses the adverse information about herself, then she may be trusted with classified information. Here, Applicant listed those debts she could remember, and was told not to worry about the rest. She believed that if she listed debts that were 180 days delinquent that those that were 90 days delinquent would be included. It is a reasonable explanation, although erroneous. The totality of the record raises no continuing doubts about Applicant's ability to protect classified information or to exercise the requisite good judgment and discretion expected of one in whom the government entrusts its interests. I conclude it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's security clearance.

FORMAL FINDINGS

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

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.