PSH-23-0064 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 17, 2023, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's finances and personal conduct.

With respect to Guideline F, the LSO alleged that a credit report from August 2022 revealed that the Individual has five delinquent accounts totaling approximately $ 37,310. The LSO also alleged that the Individual indicated that his car loan was delinquent in the amount of approximately $ 1,200 in the October 2022 Letter if Interrogatory (LOI) and that he stated that he was waiting to satisfy his delinquent car payments with severance pay and a bonus he expected to receive from his employer, which he revealed to be in the amount of $17,500 in the November 2022 LOI. He stated in the November 2022 LOI he had not yet resolved the matter of the delinquent car loan. The LSO also alleged that the Personal Finance Statement (PFS) the Individual submitted with the October 2022 LOI indicated "a net monthly deficit of approximately $1,638.97" and that the Individual and his spouse were unemployed at the time the October 2022 LOI was submitted. The Individual indicated in the November 2022 LOI that he was receiving unemployment compensation, which was left out of the PFS computation, and further, the Individual "ha[d] not used any of his unemployment funds or his bonus to resolve any of his debts." Finally, the LSO alleged that the Individual did not disclose whether his spouse was receiving unemployment compensation and that the annual income the Individual was previously earning was not enough to "keep his bills paid after his spouse lost her job."

With respect to Guideline E, the LSO alleged that the Individual failed to disclose "relevant facts and provided false or misleading information on his" Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) and to an investigator or security official. Specifically, the Individual indicated in the November 2022 LOI that he "never had any major financial debts that have caused him concern" until the COVID -19 pandemic. However, the Individual was given a letter of caution by an adjudicatory arm of a branch of the armed services in September 2008, indicating that his security clearance would be reconsidered if he did not address his delinquent debts. The LSO also alleged that the Individual stated in his November 2022 LOI that he received no such letter of caution and that the Individual failed to disclose five delinquent accounts totaling approximately $ 37,310 in his QNSP. The LSO indicated that the Individual disclosed his delinquent mortgage during the Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) after being prompted by the investigator and that the Individual "stated that he did not disclose the accounts [on his QNSP] because he misread the question and had overlooked a couple of the accounts." Lastly, the LSO alleged that the 2008 letter of caution informed the Individual that the Individual failed to disclose some delinquent accounts and cautioned him that "he is responsible for ensuring any future personnel security questionnaires are complete and accurate prior to their submission."

The Individual testified on his own behalf at the hearing. The record established that the Individual did not disclose any of his past due obligations on the QNSP. The Individual maintained that he had misunderstood the question asking about delinquent accounts. However, he disclosed his delinquent mortgage payments to the investigator during the ESI and the Individual conceded at the hearing that he knew of at least two other delinquent accounts. Regarding the 2008 letter of caution, the Individual testified that he could not remember receiving the letter, and that he only recalled discussing his student loans with the investigator who interviewed him in 2008.

The record also established that although the Individual had satisfied his outstanding car loan payments, no other debt had been satisfied. The Individual retained an attorney to refinance his home mortgage and secured the services of a credit service agency to determine whether there have been any inaccurate items on his credit report. The record also indicated that the Individual stated that his financial difficulties began in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Turning to whether the mitigating factors at ¶ 17(a), (b), or (c) applied to mitigate the Guideline E

concerns, there was no evidence indicating that the Individual disclosed the information that he omitted from his QNSP prior to being confronted by the investigator or that he withheld the information pursuant to advice of legal counsel or a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing him specifically concerning security processes. Further, the information pertained to thousands of dollars' worth of delinquent debts, and as any intentional failure to disclose information on a security form or to investigators is a serious concern, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the offense was minor. As the Individual's omission of information took place throughout the clearance process, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that it was infrequent or took place under unique circumstances. Further, there was no evidence indicating that the Individual had acknowledged his behavior and had taken any steps to alleviate the stressors that contributed to his untrustworthy behavior or that he has taken any steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Accordingly, the mitigating factors at ¶ 17(d) and (e) were inapplicable. Finally, the allegations did not indicate, nor did the record reflect, that the information was from a source of questionable reliability or that the concerns were derived from the Individual's association with persons involved in criminal activities. The mitigating factors at ¶ 17(f) and (g) were therefore inapplicable.

Although the Individual's financial concerns were arguably beyond his control, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual behaved responsibly under the circumstances. He had been behind on his mortgage for approximately one year and there was no evidence indicating that he attempted to remedy this matter until February 2023. Further, there was no evidence indicating that the Individual attempted to resolve his debts until February 2023. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual mitigated the stated concerns under ¶ 20 (b). Further, although the Individual had engaged a credit services company, there was no indication that a determination had been made regarding any alleged inaccuracies or that any practical action had been taken to resolve the matter. And accordingly, there was no indication the matter was under control. Thus, the mitigating factor at ¶ 20. (c) was inapplicable. Additionally, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the Individual had a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past - due debt, therefore, the mitigating factor at ¶ 20 (e) was inapplicable.

The remaining mitigating factors at ¶ 20 (a), (d), (f), and (g) also did not apply to this case. As the matter of the delinquent debts were ongoing, there was no indication that the issues outlined in the SSC happened under unusual circumstances, took place long ago, or were infrequent. Further, there was no indication that a payment plan had been established, and accordingly, there was no indication that the Individual was engaging in good faith efforts to repay the overdue creditors. Lastly, the stated concerns did not involve allegations of affluence or a failure to satisfy federal or state income taxes. ( OHA Case No. PSH-23-0064, Rahimzadeh)