ISCR Case 17-01335.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01335.h1

deniedDec 7, 2017· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from approximately $25,000 in financial delinquencies and false statements made on his security clearance application (e-QIP) regarding his financial history.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose multiple delinquent accounts when completing his e-QIP in December 2015, despite certifying his responses as "true, complete, and correct." These undisclosed debts included a bank credit card with an unpaid balance of $9,528, which resulted in a judgment that was later satisfied. Other delinquencies included various bank accounts, a retail charge account, a cellular telephone account, and several medical accounts, with individual balances ranging from $81 to $1,302. When initially questioned by an investigator, the applicant denied having delinquent accounts before acknowledging two, and later attributed his omissions to a belief that the accounts were outside the seven-year reporting window.

The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible management of his financial obligations and lacked a credible plan to address his debts. The denial was based on the admitted financial delinquencies, the false information provided on his application, and his failure to submit a Personal Financial Statement or evidence of efforts to resolve his debts.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $25,000.
The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his financial history.
The applicant failed to submit a Personal Financial Statement or any evidence of efforts to address his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Occurred Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“"A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 25, 2017
Answer filedJun 23, 2017Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on the written record.
Decision dateDec 7, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
False Statements on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Conditions

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 December 2015, when Applicant completed his e-QIP, he responded to certain questions pertaining to his financial record. (SOR ¶ 2.a.): The questions in Section 26 – Financial Record: Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts – asked if, in the past seven years, he had: bills or debts turned over to a collection agency; and any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. Applicant answered “no” to those questions. He certified that the responses were “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false. He initially told an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that he had no delinquent accounts, but then acknowledged that there were two delinquent accounts. After being confronted by the investigator regarding the remaining delinquent debts, Applicant said he had not listed his financial delinquencies because he believed the accounts were outside the seven-year window, and he was not aware that they were “as current as they are.”	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In December 2015, when Applicant completed his e-QIP, he responded to certain questions pertaining to his financial record. (SOR ¶ 2.a.): The questions in Section 26 – Financial Record: Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts – asked if, in the past seven years, he had: bills or debts turned over to a collection agency; and any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. Applicant answered “no” to those questions. He certified that the responses were “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false. He initially told an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that he had no delinquent accounts, but then acknowledged that there were two delinquent accounts. After being confronted by the investigator regarding the remaining delinquent debts, Applicant said he had not listed his financial delinquencies because he believed the accounts were outside the seven-year window, and he was not aware that they were “as current as they are.”

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a bank credit card account with a high credit of $8,357 that had an unpaid balance of $9,528 $9,528	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	the same creditor obtained a judgment in an unspecified amount, and in April 2016, an Entry of Satisfaction was filed indicating that the judgment had been either 'paid in full, settled, or otherwise complied with and is hereby satisfied'	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $1,302 that was sold to a debt purchaser $1,302	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $1,182 that was sold to a debt purchaser $1,182	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $929 that was transferred or sold to another entity $929	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	a bank-issued retail charge account that was charged off in the amount of $636 in January 2011 $636	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	a cellular telephone account with an unpaid balance of $523 that was sold to a debt purchaser $523	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	four medical accounts with unpaid balances of $498 $498	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	a telephone account with an unpaid balance of $474 $474	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	a medical account with an unpaid balance of $81 $81	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	a medical account with an unpaid balance of $554 $554	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	a medical account with an unpaid balance of $370 $370	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

a bank credit card account with a high credit of $8,357 that had an unpaid balance of $9,528

$9,528

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

the same creditor obtained a judgment in an unspecified amount, and in April 2016, an Entry of Satisfaction was filed indicating that the judgment had been either 'paid in full, settled, or otherwise complied with and is hereby satisfied'

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

1.c

an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $1,302 that was sold to a debt purchaser

$1,302

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $1,182 that was sold to a debt purchaser

$1,182

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $929 that was transferred or sold to another entity

$929

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

a bank-issued retail charge account that was charged off in the amount of $636 in January 2011

$636

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.g

a cellular telephone account with an unpaid balance of $523 that was sold to a debt purchaser

$523

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

four medical accounts with unpaid balances of $498

$498

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i

a telephone account with an unpaid balance of $474

$474

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.j

a medical account with an unpaid balance of $81

$81

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.k

a medical account with an unpaid balance of $554

$554

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.l

a medical account with an unpaid balance of $370

$370

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

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

FOOTNOTES