ISCR Case 06-05784.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-05784.h1

deniedApr 11, 2007· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of financial issues, including multiple unpaid debts, and a criminal record involving soliciting prostitution and repeated instances of driving with a suspended or revoked license.

The financial concerns included two judgments for delinquent student loans totaling $3,447 and $7,265, a $140 debt for overpaid unemployment benefits, and a $513 debt for bank overdrafts. Additionally, there were three medical debts of $146, $155, and $230, a $272 hospital judgment, and a $381 delinquent phone bill. The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve these financial issues.

His criminal history included a 1996 conviction for soliciting prostitution, resulting in approximately $315 in fines. He also had multiple misdemeanor citations for driving with a suspended or revoked license between 1995 and 2004, some of which were dismissed, but others resulted in fines, court costs, and a suspended 90-day jail sentence. While some personal conduct concerns were mitigated, the applicant did not adequately address the financial and criminal conduct issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations due to numerous unpaid debts.
Applicant's criminal history, including multiple offenses for driving with a suspended license, raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
Applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlApplicant's financial issues were attributed to youth and irresponsibility, not external factors.
E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not RecentApplicant's last conviction was recent enough to raise concerns.
E2.A10.1.3.2rejectedThe Crime Was an Isolated IncidentApplicant had multiple offenses indicating a pattern of disregard for the law.

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 21, 2006
Answer filedAug 4, 2006
Hearing heldMar 9, 2007Applicant waived the 15-day notice requirement.
Decision dateApr 11, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Personal Conduct Considerations Under Guideline E

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
3.a–3.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a–3.c

3 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	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.a is a judgment for $3,447 entered in 2000, for a delinquent student loan for college tuition. $4,410	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.b is a debt of $140 to a state agency for overpaid unemployment benefits. $63	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a judgment of $7,265 entered in 2001, for a delinquent student loan for college tuition. $7,265	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.d is a debt of $513 to a bank for overdrafts. $513	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230. $0	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230. $0	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230. $0	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	SOR ¶ 1.h lists a judgment of $272, entered in 2004 on behalf of a hospital. $272	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	Applicant admitted to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, in the amount of $381 for a delinquent phone bill. $381	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.a is a judgment for $3,447 entered in 2000, for a delinquent student loan for college tuition.

$4,410

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.b

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.b is a debt of $140 to a state agency for overpaid unemployment benefits.

$63

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a judgment of $7,265 entered in 2001, for a delinquent student loan for college tuition.

$7,265

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.d

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.d is a debt of $513 to a bank for overdrafts.

$513

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.e

SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.f

SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.g

SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.g are three medical debts to unknown providers in the amounts of $146, $155, and $230.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.h

SOR ¶ 1.h lists a judgment of $272, entered in 2004 on behalf of a hospital.

$272

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.i

Applicant admitted to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, in the amount of $381 for a delinquent phone bill.

$381

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was stopped by the police in July 1995, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a. Applicant admits that he was driving on a suspended license. He does not remember whether he knew at the time that his license had been suspended. The case was dismissed after Applicant provided proof to the court that his license had been reinstated.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged in September 1996, with soliciting prostitution, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b. He was found guilty, and paid approximately $315 in fines and court costs.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	Applicant was stopped by the police in February 1999, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.c. The charge was Nolle Prosequi, i.e., dismissed. Applicant admits that he was driving on a suspended license. He does not remember whether he knew at the time that his license had been suspended. Applicant continued to drive after this incident, knowing that his license was expired.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.d	Applicant was stopped by the police in July 2001, and cited for not having a driver’s license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.d. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a $100 fine and $40 court costs.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.e	Applicant was arrested on a capias warrant on about July 18, 2002, for failure to appear, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.e. A court may issue a capias should a person fail to appear in court pursuant either to a summons or a subpoena. The capias requires the arrest of the accused and a subsequent bail hearing. At the hearing triggered by the capias, the court may fine or jail the person for failing to appear. In this case the capias was dismissed. There is insufficient evidence of any criminal responsibility on Applicant’s part, as relates to this warrant and arrest.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant was stopped by the police on about August 12, 2004, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.f. A capias warrant was issued on about September 23, 2004, for Applicant’s failure to appear, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.g. The warrant was dismissed in February 2005, when Applicant was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days in jail, suspended, a fine of $100 and court costs of $178.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.g	Applicant was stopped by the police in October 2002, and cited for driving on a revoked license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.g. The charge was Nolle Prosequi.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.h	Applicant was stopped by the police in April 2002, and cited for driving while suspended, amended to not having a driver’s license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.h. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a $25 fine and court costs of $164.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.i	Applicant was stopped by the police in October 2002, and cited for driving on a revoked license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.i. The charge was Nolle Prosequi.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was stopped by the police in July 1995, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a. Applicant admits that he was driving on a suspended license. He does not remember whether he knew at the time that his license had been suspended. The case was dismissed after Applicant provided proof to the court that his license had been reinstated.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.b

Applicant was charged in September 1996, with soliciting prostitution, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b. He was found guilty, and paid approximately $315 in fines and court costs.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.c

Applicant was stopped by the police in February 1999, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.c. The charge was Nolle Prosequi, i.e., dismissed. Applicant admits that he was driving on a suspended license. He does not remember whether he knew at the time that his license had been suspended. Applicant continued to drive after this incident, knowing that his license was expired.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.d

Applicant was stopped by the police in July 2001, and cited for not having a driver’s license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.d. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a $100 fine and $40 court costs.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.e

Applicant was arrested on a capias warrant on about July 18, 2002, for failure to appear, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.e. A court may issue a capias should a person fail to appear in court pursuant either to a summons or a subpoena. The capias requires the arrest of the accused and a subsequent bail hearing. At the hearing triggered by the capias, the court may fine or jail the person for failing to appear. In this case the capias was dismissed. There is insufficient evidence of any criminal responsibility on Applicant’s part, as relates to this warrant and arrest.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

2.f

Applicant was stopped by the police on about August 12, 2004, and cited for driving on a revoked/suspended license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.f. A capias warrant was issued on about September 23, 2004, for Applicant’s failure to appear, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.g. The warrant was dismissed in February 2005, when Applicant was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days in jail, suspended, a fine of $100 and court costs of $178.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.g

Applicant was stopped by the police in October 2002, and cited for driving on a revoked license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.g. The charge was Nolle Prosequi.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.h

Applicant was stopped by the police in April 2002, and cited for driving while suspended, amended to not having a driver’s license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.h. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a $25 fine and court costs of $164.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.i

Applicant was stopped by the police in October 2002, and cited for driving on a revoked license, a misdemeanor, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.i. The charge was Nolle Prosequi.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

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

SYNOPSIS

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES