CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-26601 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 06-26601

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/14/2007
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Barry M. Sax
Government Counsel: Robert E. Coacher
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old painter for a defense contractor who faced allegations under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline F (Financial), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons outlined a history of financial problems, including significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,248.86, and a record of minor criminal violations from 1987 to 1999. Additionally, the applicant was found to have falsified answers on his May 2006 security clearance application regarding his financial delinquencies and criminal history.
The applicant admitted to several allegations related to his financial issues and criminal conduct but did not provide any evidence or explanations in mitigation. He acknowledged the existence of his debts and the falsifications on his application but failed to demonstrate any efforts to resolve his financial obligations or address the concerns raised by the government. The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions established disqualifying conditions under all three guidelines, and no mitigating factors were presented.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that granting or continuing a security clearance was not clearly consistent with national interest due to the established financial issues, deliberate falsifications, and criminal history. The judge emphasized the lack of mitigation and the applicant's failure to adequately respond to the government's concerns.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-26601

deniedJun 14, 2007· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old painter for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues, a history of minor criminal violations, and falsification of information on his security clearance applications. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant had unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,248.86. His criminal record included a 1979 conviction for altering a price tag, a 1998 conviction for unemployment fraud with a $4,000 restitution order, and a 2003 conviction for obtaining utility service without payment, which resulted in a suspended jail sentence and an unpaid debt. He also faced a dismissed charge for failure to appear in 2000 after making required payments.

Crucially, the applicant falsified his May 6, 2005, security clearance application by failing to disclose these criminal offenses. He admitted to falsifying information but did not provide adequate mitigation for his financial irresponsibility or personal conduct concerns, leading to the denial of his clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a substantial history of financial delinquencies totaling approximately $19,248.86, which were not resolved.
The applicant deliberately falsified material facts on his security clearance applications, failing to disclose relevant criminal conduct and financial delinquencies.
No mitigating evidence was presented to address the government's concerns regarding financial irresponsibility and personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
DC 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
DC 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
DC 31(a)appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
DC 31(c)appliedAn Allegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2007
Answer filedMar 23, 2007Applicant elected for a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 14, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Denial Due to Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J

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 falsified material facts on his security clearance application by omitting relevant criminal conduct. This conduct was deemed deliberate and not mitigated, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated May 6, 2005, when he responded to Question 26 Your Police Record - Other Offenses [in the past seven years] by stating 'No,' and intentionally omitting any mention of the criminal conduct alleged in 3.b., 3.c., and 3.d.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

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 judge found that the applicant has a history of past due debts totaling approximately $19,248.86, which remain unpaid and unresolved. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant under Guideline F, determining that the financial considerations raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of past due debts (delinquent, charged off, referred for collection, or reduced to judgment) to the following creditors in the amounts cited: The debt cited in allegation 3.a. is reported as being referred for collection in about 1979, and is therefore outside the seven year period during which the debt had to be reported in the SF 86. $19,248	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, specifically regarding the concealment of merchandise and other offenses. The applicant's history of criminal conduct was deemed disqualifying, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was charged with Concealment of Merchandise on about June 21, 1979. He was found guilty of Alter Price Tag, fined $265.00 and sentenced to 30 days in jail, suspended.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.b	Applicant was charged with Make False Statement for Unemployment Benefit on June 18, 1998, found guilty of Unemployment Fraud, fined $25.00, and required to pay back $4,000.00.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.c	Applicant was charged with Failure to Appear on Misdemeanor Charge on about September 3, 2000, when he failed to appear or make the ordered payments. The charge was dismissed when he subsequently made the required payments.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant was charged on June 19, 2003 with (1) Contempt of Court and (2) Obtaining Utility Service without Payment under $200.00. He was found guilty of Count (2) and sentenced to 60 days in jail, 55 days suspended. There is no record the debt was ever paid.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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

Full decision

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