CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00561.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 17-00561.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/6/2018
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Francisco Mendez
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, determining that he deliberately omitted relevant information from his security clearance application. The applicant's lack of candor and failure to report his termination and a related lawsuit raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
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. 17-00561.h1

deniedAug 6, 2018· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old federal contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues and deliberate falsification of his security clearance application. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

The applicant had over $300,000 in seven delinquent debts, a history of not meeting financial obligations, and a negative cash flow exceeding $1,350 per month. He filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in 2010 and 2011, both of which were dismissed, and failed to file his 2013 and 2014 tax returns when due. Despite a six-figure salary, he provided no credible evidence of efforts to resolve these debts, and his financial problems dated back to 2008. Furthermore, he submitted misleading documents and a personal financial statement that portrayed a more favorable financial picture than reality.

Under Guideline E, the applicant deliberately failed to report his 2011 termination from federal employment and a subsequent lawsuit on his security clearance application. He also provided misleading information about the reason for leaving federal employment. The applicant's explanations for both his financial situation and these omissions lacked credibility, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns related to over $300,000 in delinquent debts.
Applicant deliberately falsified his security clearance application by omitting his termination from federal employment and a related lawsuit.
The applicant's explanations for his financial situation and omissions lacked credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(d)raisedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File Income Tax Returns
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 4, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2018mutually agreed date
Decision dateAug 6, 2018

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility and Its Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
The Importance of Credibility in Presenting Evidence for Mitigating Financial Issues

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 against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, determining that he deliberately omitted relevant information from his security clearance application. The applicant's lack of candor and failure to report his termination and a related lawsuit raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness and reliability, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately failed to report on the SCA his termination from federal employment in 2011 and the lawsuit he then filed regarding the termination.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	He provided misleading information about the reason he left federal employment.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Withdrawn	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 significant financial concerns regarding the applicant's inability to manage debts, with a total of seven delinquent debts exceeding $300,000. Despite the applicant's claims of financial hardship and plans to file for bankruptcy, the judge ruled against the applicant, citing a lack of credible evidence to mitigate the financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has seven delinquent debts totaling over $300,000. $300,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in 2010 and 2011, both of which were dismissed.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to file his 2013 and 2014 tax returns when they were due.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.e	Applicant has taken no responsible, voluntary action to resolve the SOR debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.f	Applicant's financial analysis indicates a negative cash flow of over $1,350 per month.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.g	Applicant's financial situation has been impacted by his wife's military moves and the recession, but this is insufficient to mitigate concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.h	Applicant submitted misleading documents regarding his financial situation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices	—	—
1.i	Applicant's financial analysis was intended for submission to a bankruptcy court to obtain a discharge of debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices	—	—
1.j	Applicant's personal financial statement portrayed a more favorable financial picture than reality.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices	—	—
1.k	Applicant's financial problems date back to 2008, but he has not taken responsible action to address them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—

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

Full decision

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