ISCR Case 20-02743

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02743

deniedNov 1, 2022· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old veteran with an honorable military service record was denied a security clearance, primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While the applicant successfully mitigated concerns related to personal conduct, criminal conduct, and alcohol consumption, his financial situation remained a significant obstacle.

The applicant faced several financial allegations, including a mortgage loan for a rental property that was more than 120 days past due when he completed a security clearance application in February 2018, despite answering "no" to a question about overdue debts. This mortgage was subsequently foreclosed upon by November 2019, with no deficiency owed after the sale. Additionally, he had an auto loan account charged off for $3,837 in 2018 after he could not afford repair costs, leading to the car's sale at auction. He also had a disputed delinquent phone bill totaling $1,182 with a collection agent, which he was attempting to remove from his credit report.

Other allegations included a December 2015 DWI conviction, a January 2016 DUI conviction while on probation, and a guilty finding in April 2017 for violating parole by attempting to drive on a suspended license, which he denied. In August 2019, he was fined for displaying a registered plate issued for another vehicle. Despite mitigating the alcohol and criminal conduct concerns, the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial considerations, specifically regarding unresolved debts and a lack of financial management, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated concerns related to personal conduct under Guideline E.
The applicant mitigated concerns related to alcohol consumption under Guideline G.
The applicant mitigated concerns related to criminal conduct under Guideline J.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant did not act responsibly regarding his financial obligations.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Is Receiving Financial CounselingThe applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 2, 2021
Answer filedJun 9, 2021
Hearing heldJun 8, 2022
Decision dateNov 1, 2022

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security concerns.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	In December 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and failure to stop/elude the police. The failure to stop/elude the police charge was nolle prossed. He was found guilty of the DWI charge, given a 30-day suspended jail sentence, and placed on probation for 12 months. As part of probation, his license was suspended and he had to attend an alcohol safety program. Also, the court ordered the installation of an ignition lock on Applicant’s car for six months.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	In January 2016, while on probation, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. Subsequently, he was found guilty and given a one-year suspended jail sentence, two years supervised probation, fined $1,500, and ordered to attend six months of alcohol counseling. Applicant completed the requirements of probation.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.d	In April 2017, Applicant was issued a citation for violating the terms of parole by attempting to drive on a suspended license. Applicant denies this allegation, contending that his license was not suspended; rather, it was turned in to the motor vehicle administration when he moved to another state and applied for a new license. Applicant did not provide any documentation in support of this contention. He was found guilty.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	In August 2019, Applicant was charged with displaying a registered plate issued for another vehicle. He was found guilty and fined $70.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.f	Applicant completed a security clearance application in February 2018. He answered “no” to a question requiring applicants to disclose any debts that were more than 120 days past due, as of the execution date of the security clearance application. When Applicant completed the application, he was more than 120 days delinquent on mortgage payments for a rental property that he owned.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant mitigated the personal conduct security concerns.

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

1.b

In December 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and failure to stop/elude the police. The failure to stop/elude the police charge was nolle prossed. He was found guilty of the DWI charge, given a 30-day suspended jail sentence, and placed on probation for 12 months. As part of probation, his license was suspended and he had to attend an alcohol safety program. Also, the court ordered the installation of an ignition lock on Applicant’s car for six months.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.c

In January 2016, while on probation, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. Subsequently, he was found guilty and given a one-year suspended jail sentence, two years supervised probation, fined $1,500, and ordered to attend six months of alcohol counseling. Applicant completed the requirements of probation.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.d

In April 2017, Applicant was issued a citation for violating the terms of parole by attempting to drive on a suspended license. Applicant denies this allegation, contending that his license was not suspended; rather, it was turned in to the motor vehicle administration when he moved to another state and applied for a new license. Applicant did not provide any documentation in support of this contention. He was found guilty.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.e

In August 2019, Applicant was charged with displaying a registered plate issued for another vehicle. He was found guilty and fined $70.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

1.f

Applicant completed a security clearance application in February 2018. He answered “no” to a question requiring applicants to disclose any debts that were more than 120 days past due, as of the execution date of the security clearance application. When Applicant completed the application, he was more than 120 days delinquent on mortgage payments for a rental property that he owned.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	By November 2019, the mortgage loan had been foreclosed upon, and the home was sold at auction. Applicant owed no deficiency after the sale.	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
4.b	Applicant is indebted on an auto loan account that was charged off in the amount of $3,837. He incurred this debt in 2018 when he took his car to an auto shop for repairs and could not afford the repair cost. Applicant disputed the repair cost amount to the shop owner, and 'they basically ended up selling the car at an auction.' $3,837	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
4.c	Applicant is indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent phone bill, totaling $1,182. Applicant denies the debt. He is working to remove it from his credit report with the help of a credit repair company. $1,182	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
4.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

4.a

By November 2019, the mortgage loan had been foreclosed upon, and the home was sold at auction. Applicant owed no deficiency after the sale.

Against Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Unknown

—

4.b

Applicant is indebted on an auto loan account that was charged off in the amount of $3,837. He incurred this debt in 2018 when he took his car to an auto shop for repairs and could not afford the repair cost. Applicant disputed the repair cost amount to the shop owner, and 'they basically ended up selling the car at an auction.'

$3,837

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Unknown

—

4.c

Applicant is indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent phone bill, totaling $1,182. Applicant denies the debt. He is working to remove it from his credit report with the help of a credit repair company.

$1,182

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

4.d

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct security concerns.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct security concerns.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision