ISCR Case 22-01125

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01125

deniedFeb 15, 2023· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial issues, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $78,000, in addition to a $66,000 child support delinquency. A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to provide evidence of resolving or attempting to resolve these significant debts.

Further concerns under Guideline E arose from the applicant's failure to disclose his delinquent child support account on his SF 86, only revealing it during a security interview. Other allegations included misuse of a corporate credit card from September 2015 to March 2016 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in November 2005.

While the applicant also faced allegations under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and related incidents, and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) for a history including battery, domestic violence, and multiple driving-related charges, these concerns were mitigated. However, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's failure to address the financial delinquencies and lack of candor regarding them raised serious doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $78,000, including a $66,000 child support delinquency.
The applicant provided no evidence of resolving or attempting to resolve the debts.
The applicant failed to report financial delinquencies on his SF 86 and did not disclose the child support delinquency until confronted during his security interview.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(d)raisedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate that his financial issues were beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not provide evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedDispute Legitimacy of DebtThe applicant did not provide documentation to substantiate his claims regarding the child support debt.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 9, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 15, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Resolution Impacting Reliability and Trustworthiness
Mitigation of Criminal Conduct and Alcohol Consumption Concerns Despite Financial Issues.

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
4.a	Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent child support account in his SF 86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
4.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent child support account in his SF 86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

4.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has eight delinquent debts totaling about $78,000. $78,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a $66,000 child support delinquency. $66,000	Against Applicant	Child Support Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.i	Applicant misused his corporate credit card from September 2015 until March 2016. $2,500	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.j	Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that was discharged in November 2005. $0	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has eight delinquent debts totaling about $78,000.

$78,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant has a $66,000 child support delinquency.

$66,000

Against Applicant

Child Support Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.i

Applicant misused his corporate credit card from September 2015 until March 2016.

$2,500

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

Claimed

Other

1.j

Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that was discharged in November 2005.

For Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and a history of alcohol-related incidents.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
3.b–3.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and a history of alcohol-related incidents.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

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

—

3.b–3.d

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has a history of criminal conduct including battery and domestic violence.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.b	In August 2010, Applicant was charged with driving with a suspended license.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	In March 2011 he was charged with violating the terms of his probation because of driving on a suspended license.	For Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.d	In November 2010, Applicant was charged with violating the terms of his probation when he tested positive for methamphetamine after taking a court-ordered drug test.	For Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.e	In about September 2007, Applicant was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.f	In about January 2004, Applicant was driving with an open container of alcohol in his car.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant has a history of criminal conduct including battery and domestic violence.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.b

In August 2010, Applicant was charged with driving with a suspended license.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.c

In March 2011 he was charged with violating the terms of his probation because of driving on a suspended license.

For Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Convicted

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.d

In November 2010, Applicant was charged with violating the terms of his probation when he tested positive for methamphetamine after taking a court-ordered drug test.

For Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Convicted

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.e

In about September 2007, Applicant was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.f

In about January 2004, Applicant was driving with an open container of alcohol in his car.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION