ISCR Case 16-02128.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02128.h1

deniedApr 11, 2017· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old senior financial specialist employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant engaged in a series of poor financial decisions, including fraudulent checks and significant monetary transfers to online acquaintances, while simultaneously carrying substantial delinquent debts.

Specifically, the applicant presented a fraudulent check for $30,300 in 2015, which was returned for insufficient funds. She had received this check from an acquaintance met online, and after depositing it, sent approximately $5,000 to the acquaintance's agents in Africa before the bank identified the check as fraudulent. In 2014, her bank account was closed due to returned incoming wire attempts, and she gave over $10,000 to another overseas acquaintance despite having delinquent debts exceeding $27,000. These debts included a $10,184 bank debt, a $6,856 credit card debt, an $815 bank debt, a $506 telecommunications debt, and a $947 furniture store account, all placed for collection.

While some mitigating factors were considered regarding her criminal conduct, the judge found that the concerns related to personal conduct and financial considerations were not mitigated. Although her judgment was impaired by depression, this did not sufficiently address the issues. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in fraudulent financial transactions involving checks totaling $39,000.
She provided substantial financial assistance to acquaintances met online despite having significant delinquent debts.
Her judgment was impaired by depression, but this did not mitigate the personal conduct and financial considerations concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2raisedPersonal Conduct
F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

J2appliedCriminal ConductThe applicant was unsure about the fraudulent nature of the checks.
E2rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's financial decisions were not mitigated by her claims of depression.
F2rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines (AG).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 4, 2016
Answer filedNov 11, 2016
Hearing heldMar 13, 2017Applicant waived her right to 15 days of notice.
Decision dateApr 11, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Misconduct Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Consideration of Mental Health Issues in the Context of Financial Decisions and Security Clearance.

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
2.a	In 2014, Applicant gave away over $10,000 to an acquaintance doing business overseas despite having delinquent debts exceeding $27,000.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	In January 2014, Applicant’s bank account was closed due to 'returned incoming wire' attempts.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In 2014, Applicant gave away over $10,000 to an acquaintance doing business overseas despite having delinquent debts exceeding $27,000.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.e

In January 2014, Applicant’s bank account was closed due to 'returned incoming wire' attempts.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a bank debt placed for collection for $10,184 $10,184	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a bank credit card debt placed for collection for $6,856 $6,856	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	a bank debt placed for collection for $815 $815	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	a telecommunications debt placed for collection for $506 $506	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
1.e	a furniture store account placed for collection for $947 $947	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

a bank debt placed for collection for $10,184

$10,184

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

a bank credit card debt placed for collection for $6,856

$6,856

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

a bank debt placed for collection for $815

$815

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

a telecommunications debt placed for collection for $506

$506

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

1.e

a furniture store account placed for collection for $947

$947

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	SOR ¶ 1.g and 2.b: Applicant presented a check for $30,300 that was returned for insufficient funds and placed for collection. In July 2015, Applicant received a check for $30,300 from an address in Africa, and P, an acquaintance she met over the Internet, or his agent told her the check was from a businessman who owed money to P. The check was payable to Applicant, and she deposited the check into her bank account. After she deposited the check, she was supposed to immediately send money to P. The bank put the proceeds of the check on hold, but authorized $5,000 to $5,300 for release to Applicant because she was such a good customer. She sent two money grams totaling about $5,000 to P’s agents in Africa. In August 2014, the bank notified Applicant that the check was fraudulent and took $1,000 from her account as well as the deposit from her pay.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

SOR ¶ 1.g and 2.b: Applicant presented a check for $30,300 that was returned for insufficient funds and placed for collection. In July 2015, Applicant received a check for $30,300 from an address in Africa, and P, an acquaintance she met over the Internet, or his agent told her the check was from a businessman who owed money to P. The check was payable to Applicant, and she deposited the check into her bank account. After she deposited the check, she was supposed to immediately send money to P. The bank put the proceeds of the check on hold, but authorized $5,000 to $5,300 for release to Applicant because she was such a good customer. She sent two money grams totaling about $5,000 to P’s agents in Africa. In August 2014, the bank notified Applicant that the check was fraudulent and took $1,000 from her account as well as the deposit from her pay.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

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

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES