Summary
The applicant, a 36-year-old electronics technician employed by a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to misuse of a company credit card and multiple delinquent debts. The judge found that the applicant's actions demonstrated a lack of reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The SOR alleges misuse of a company credit card between March 2013 and February 2014 by obtaining cash advances and incurring charges for personal items such as his cell phone and storage fees, thereby accumulating an unpaid balance of $2,209 (1.a(1)). The SOR alleges that Applicant falsely claimed travel expenses totaling $1,481 (1.a(2)). misuse of a company credit card, accumulating an unpaid balance of $2,209 (2.a). delinquent department-store account referred for collection of $525 (2.b). medical debt for $331 referred for collection (2.c). medical debt for $264 referred for collection (2.d). medical debt for $202 referred for collection (2.e). medical debt for $38 referred for collection (2.f). medical debt for $26 referred for collection (2.g).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2(c), E2(d), F2(a), F2(b), F2(c), F2(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions E3(c), F3(a), F3(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to misusing a company credit card for personal expenses, which was a deliberate act involving a substantial amount of money; The applicant's double billing of travel expenses was frequent and not resolved, indicating a lack of responsibility; The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the overpayments related to travel expenses.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to misusing a company credit card for personal expenses, which was a deliberate act involving a substantial amount of money.
- The applicant's double billing of travel expenses was frequent and not resolved, indicating a lack of responsibility.
- The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the overpayments related to travel expenses.
Conditions Referenced
- E2(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- E2(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information That Is Not Explicitly Covered Under Any Other Guideline
- F2(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- F2(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- F2(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- F2(d)appliedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
- E3(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent
- F3(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- F3(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 7, 2017
- Answer filedFeb 12, 2017
- Hearing heldFeb 27, 2018
- Decision dateMay 3, 2018
Cite For
- Misuse of Company Credit Card Under Guideline E
- Double Billing for Travel Expenses Under Guideline E
- Financial Irresponsibility and Its Implications Under Guideline F