CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00633 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00633denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00633

deniedDec 6, 2018· Hon. Caroline E. Heintzelman· hearing

Summary

A 69-year-old widow was denied a public trust position due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to over $87,000 in delinquent debts, which included a defaulted mortgage she voluntarily disclosed to an investigator. She claimed some debts were resolved but did not provide sufficient evidence of mitigation.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to disclose 12 delinquent debts totaling over $87,000 in her November 2016 security clearance application. While she denied one Guideline E allegation, the judge found that her financial difficulties were not adequately addressed.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of significant delinquent debts, her failure to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation for these financial issues, and her failure to disclose all delinquent debts in her security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to significant delinquent debts totaling over $87,000.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation for her financial issues.
The applicant did not disclose all delinquent debts in her security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 14raisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2018
Answer filedApr 28, 2018
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateDec 6, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Personal Conduct Mitigation

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to disclose delinquent debts in her security clearance application, which raised personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant denied the allegations but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns, resulting in a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to disclose delinquent debts in her November 2016 SCA.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant denied the one Guideline E allegation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant volunteered to the government investigator that she had defaulted on her mortgage.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d–1.k	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling over $87,000 and failed to disclose these debts in her security clearance application. The judge found the financial concerns under Guideline F were not mitigated, resulting in a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 12 delinquent debts totaling over $87,000 and failed to disclose these debts in her security clearance application. $87,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: )

)

ADP Case No. 18-00633

) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

Appearances

For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

______________

Decision ______________

HEINTZELMAN, Caroline E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations and personal conduct concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

History of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on November 29, 2016. On March 30, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)1 alleging security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. Applicant answered the SOR on April 28, 2018, and requested a decision on the record without a hearing.

On May 24, 2018, a complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, was mailed to Applicant. Additionally, Department Counsel (DC)

1 The SOR misidentified the case as an Industrial Security Clearance Review (ISCR); however, the appropriate designator is automated data processing (ADP). This did not affect the applicable adjudicative policy, and I pen and inked the SOR to reflect the change. 12/06/2018

made a motion to amend the SOR.2 She withdrew SOR ¶ 1.dand changed the amounts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.hand 1.j.3 Applicant received the FORM on June 1, 2018. The FORM notified Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the FORM. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on September 14, 2018. Items 1 through 6 are admitted into evidence without objection.

Findings of Fact4

Applicant is 69 years old. She was married for 24 years and has been a widow since 2008. She received a bachelor’s degree in 1971. In approximately 2012, after working as a medical records technician for 21 years, she retired. She has worked for her current employer since February 2016. She attributes her financial issues to her four-year period of retirement between 2012 and 2016. (Item 6).

The SOR alleges 12 delinquent debts, totaling over $87,000. Additionally, Applicant failed to disclose delinquent debts in her November 2016 SCA. In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, she admitted to some of the allegations, but claimed that several of the debts were resolved. She also denied the one Guideline E allegation.

During her November 2017 personal subject interview (PSI), Applicant volunteered to the government investigator that she had defaulted on her mortgage. She did not disclose any other debts until she was confronted by the investigator. Applicant told the investigator that she failed to disclose the delinquent debts in her SCA due to “oversight” or they became delinquent after she completed the SCA in November 2016. She also claimed that she had set up payment plans for several of the debts, including SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, and 1.k. At that time, Applicant told the investigator that she had not sought credit counseling. (Item 6 at 4-9)

In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed that she did not falsify her SCA, but there was a problem “with the system and answers to questions.” She also claimed that she told the investigator “about [her] bills that were in collection, charged off and [she] was enrolled with a debt consolidation program.” (Item 2 at 4)

During her four years of retirement, Applicant was supported by retirement savings; however, this money was insufficient to pay her bills and numerous debts became delinquent. The alleged debts became delinquent between 2014 and 2016. (Item 3; Item 6)

2 The Directive’s provisions for amending the SOR are permissive. See ISCR Case NO. 08-02404 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2009) and Additional Procedural Guidance E.3.1.17. Applicant did not object to DC’s motion to amend; therefore, I will amend the SOR per DC’s request.

3 SOR ¶ 1.hwas changed from $467 to $867. SOR ¶ 1.jwas changed from $6,638 to $7,661.

4 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her security clearance application (Item 3) unless otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record.