ISCR Case 17-01874.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01874.h1

grantedSep 6, 2018· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old veteran was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to disclose several debts on his April 25, 2016, security clearance application. These included a repossessed car deficiency from early 2017, an approximately ten-year-old car loan totaling about $3,500, and two disputed debts each totaling approximately $24,000. Additionally, the applicant had satisfied debts collectively totaling $1,416 and caught up on payments for another car note.

The applicant contended he was unaware of the delinquent debts when he completed his application, stating his wife, who managed their finances, incurred them without his knowledge. The judge found no intent to falsify the application, noting the applicant's credible testimony and exemplary military service suggested any omission was due to carelessness rather than deceit.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the finding that the applicant was unaware of the financial delinquencies at the time of his application and had since taken steps to address them. He had either satisfied his delinquencies or was actively satisfying them through payment plans, effectively mitigating the financial concerns.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant was unaware of his financial delinquencies when he completed his security clearance application, demonstrating no intent to falsify.
He has either satisfied his delinquencies or is satisfying them through payment plans, mitigating financial concerns.
The applicant's credible testimony and exemplary military service supported the conclusion that any omission was due to carelessness, not deceit.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe judge found the applicant's omission was due to carelessness, not deceit.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Financial Counseling From a Legitimate Source
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedInitiated and Adhered to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 8, 2017
Answer filedJul 20, 2017
Hearing heldJun 28, 2018
Decision dateSep 6, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Lack of Knowledge of Debts Under Guideline F
Carelessness in Omission of Financial Information Under Guideline E
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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	Applicant completed a security clearance application on April 25, 2016. He did not include any of the debts alleged in the SOR in response to questions about his finances. Applicant contends that he was unaware of the delinquent debts when he completed the security clearance application because his wife, who then managed the finances, incurred them without his knowledge.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant completed a security clearance application on April 25, 2016. He did not include any of the debts alleged in the SOR in response to questions about his finances. Applicant contends that he was unaware of the delinquent debts when he completed the security clearance application because his wife, who then managed the finances, incurred them without his knowledge.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has caught up on payments owed on a car note	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	The deficiency from a car that was repossessed in early 2017	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant has satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.g through 1.i, collectively totaling $1,416 $1,416	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	An allegedly delinquent car loan that Applicant used to finance the purchase of a car approximately ten years ago, totaling approximately $3,500 $3,500	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.e	Debts totaling approximately $24,000 that Applicant disputes, contending that they are not his debts $24,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.f	Debts totaling approximately $24,000 that Applicant disputes, contending that they are not his debts $24,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.g	Applicant has satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.g through 1.i, collectively totaling $1,416 $1,416	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.h–1.i	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has caught up on payments owed on a car note

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.b

The deficiency from a car that was repossessed in early 2017

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.c

Applicant has satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.g through 1.i, collectively totaling $1,416

$1,416

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.d

An allegedly delinquent car loan that Applicant used to finance the purchase of a car approximately ten years ago, totaling approximately $3,500

$3,500

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.e

Debts totaling approximately $24,000 that Applicant disputes, contending that they are not his debts

$24,000

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.f

Debts totaling approximately $24,000 that Applicant disputes, contending that they are not his debts

$24,000

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.g

Applicant has satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.g through 1.i, collectively totaling $1,416

$1,416

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.h–1.i

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

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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