When an applicant for a security clearance is denied, the Department of Defense will issue a “statement of reasons” to the applicant advising him of the basis for the decision. The applicant may then request a hearing for review of that decision, and, if still unsatisfied, appeal that determination.
“Gambler’s Ruin” – Case No. 11-15090
THE FACTS
The applicant in this case is a 72-year-old man. He served nearly 30 years in the U.S. military before becoming a government contractor. He has held a security clearance since 2001.
During his service, the applicant acquired a fondness for gambling. Upon retiring from the military in 1987, he moved to an area that permitted legalized gambling. He estimated that for the next 14 years, he gambled as much as one-third of his military retirement and employment pay each week at casinos.
From there, his gambling increased. He currently estimates gambling at least one-third to one-half of his income each week at casinos.
The applicant enjoys a comfortable monthly income of $6,600. His monthly expenses total $3,900 ($3,600 for his mortgage, food, transportation, insurance, delinquent debt repayment; and $2,000 to $3,000 for gambling/entertainment/etc.)
Despite his expensive gambling habit, the applicant has adequate funds to pay his monthly mortgage of $2,500, live comfortably, and meet his financial obligations. In the past, however, he admitted to using his credit and debit cards to withdraw cash advances for gambling. These accounts have been closed by the lenders, and they reflect delinquent debts.
The applicant identified his need to gamble as “relentless.” He described becoming euphoric at the possibility of winning a high amount of money quickly. Thus far, he has not sought treatment or counseling.
The applicant stated he had never discussed his gambling behavior in-depth during previous clearance investigations because he did not believe it was relevant. After his most recent investigation the applicant was denied a clearance. He appealed.
THE RESULT:
CLEARANCE DENIED. The judge considered the applicant’s gambling “an addiction” that raised security concerns about his judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability, and affirmed his clearance denial.
How will the court tell if your gambling crosses the line? Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 19(i) lists several indications that your gambling is more than mere fun.
- Are you “chasing loses”? As in, are you increasing the bets or returning another day in an effort to get even?
- Have you ever borrowed money to gamble or to pay gambling debts?
- Have you previously tried to stop gambling and failed?
- Is there evidence of family conflict or other problems caused by your gambling?
Has your gambling led to debt? If so, gambling debt is considered worse than other forms. In the eyes of the court, not all financial problems are equal. Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 19 (f) explicitly cites gambling debts as a financial problem of particular security concern.
Even if you have ample money to gamble away, it is the behavior itself that raises concerns. Consider the applicant in this case who had adequate income to pay his mortgage, live comfortably, and meet his financial obligations. It was the compulsive nature of his personal conduct and his susceptibility to addition, ipso facto, that cast doubt on his ability to protect classified information. “This personal conduct made Applicant vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, and duress,” stated the judge.
If your gambling has led to financial distress, do you continue to do it? In this case, the applicant continued to gamble, and demonstrated no signs of slowing down. Mitigating factors to a security concern like gambling include (1) that the behavior happened sufficiently long ago, or (2) that the applicant has received counseling for the problem or there are other clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.
Is your gambling legal? Of course, if the form of gambling you enjoy is illegal, it will show an unwillingness to comply with the law and raise additional questions about your reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.
