ISCR Case 06-07168.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-07168.h1

deniedApr 17, 2007· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old single female applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from numerous delinquent debts and her failure to disclose these debts on her trustworthiness application.

The applicant had multiple outstanding debts, including a judgment from September 2000, charged-off retail credit card debts from 2001, and overdrafts and credit card loans from 2001. While she claimed to have made payments or arranged payment plans for some debts, such as a $200 monthly payment agreement starting July 2006 for one judgment and two payments in November 2006 for a retail store account, she often failed to provide verification. She also repaid delinquent state taxes for tax year 2001. However, for several other debts, she provided no documentation of payment or resolution, or disputed the amounts owed.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's history of unaddressed delinquent debts over an extended period, her inability to provide corroborating documentation for claimed payments or arrangements, and her deliberate omission of these debts from her trustworthiness application, which was deemed a credible misrepresentation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant incurred numerous delinquent debts over a significant period without addressing them.
She failed to provide corroborating documentation for her claims of payment plans and assistance from her mother.
The applicant deliberately omitted her delinquent debts from her trustworthiness application, which was found to be a credible misrepresentation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

FC DC 1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
FC DC 3appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
PC DC 2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“The standard that must be met for … assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that … assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
— Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R (Jan. 1987)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 17, 2006
Answer filedOct 11, 2006Sworn statement in response to SOR
Hearing held—Case decided on written record
Decision dateApr 17, 2007

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts on a Trustworthiness Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
Credibility Issues in Applicant's Explanations Regarding Financial Conduct

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 failed to list she had delinquent debts on her trustworthiness application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to list she had delinquent debts on her trustworthiness application.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted the debt in SOR ¶ 1. a and claimed it is a duplicate of ¶ 1. c. The debt was charged off in February 2000. The debt is a judgment that was filed in September 2000. She stated she never received notice. She recently contacted the creditor and updated her current address. The creditor originally wanted full payment and would not accept a payment plan. However, the creditor agreed in June 2006 to accept monthly payments of $200 beginning in July. Applicant stated she made three payments but has not provided verification of these payments.	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b is a debt that Applicant stated she paid prior to leaving State A. She failed to keep a record of her payment, claimed she recently contacted them to provide her new address and was going to 'try to work out a payment plan with them.' No documentation was provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.d is a debt to retail store credit card. Applicant contacted the creditor to provide a current address. She stated she sent money to her mother to pay the debt. She also stated she would repay the debt within one year. No further documentation was provided to show any payments have been made. This debt was charged off in February 2001.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f and 1.i are all from the same creditor and are for overdrafts and credit card loans. These three debts were charged off in May, June and November 2001 respectively. Applicant has contacted the creditor and stated she would have payments deducted from her pay starting in August 2006. No proof of payments were provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g is an account from a retail store. She stated she had paid it off, but later found out more was owed. She settled and repaid the debt with two payments completed in November 2006. The debt was originally sent to collection in September 2001. It appears that this is the same debt as listed in SOR ¶ 1.l.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h, Applicant claims is the same as in ¶ 1. b, but provided no proof of the duplication or that it is paid. Applicant admits to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.j, but disputes the amount. No proof of resolution was provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.k was placed for collection in March 2006. Applicant does not recognize the creditor. No proof of resolution was provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.m was for delinquent state taxes for tax year 2001. She repaid this debt.	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i–1.m	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted the debt in SOR ¶ 1. a and claimed it is a duplicate of ¶ 1. c. The debt was charged off in February 2000. The debt is a judgment that was filed in September 2000. She stated she never received notice. She recently contacted the creditor and updated her current address. The creditor originally wanted full payment and would not accept a payment plan. However, the creditor agreed in June 2006 to accept monthly payments of $200 beginning in July. Applicant stated she made three payments but has not provided verification of these payments.

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

SOR ¶ 1.b is a debt that Applicant stated she paid prior to leaving State A. She failed to keep a record of her payment, claimed she recently contacted them to provide her new address and was going to 'try to work out a payment plan with them.' No documentation was provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

SOR ¶ 1.d is a debt to retail store credit card. Applicant contacted the creditor to provide a current address. She stated she sent money to her mother to pay the debt. She also stated she would repay the debt within one year. No further documentation was provided to show any payments have been made. This debt was charged off in February 2001.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f and 1.i are all from the same creditor and are for overdrafts and credit card loans. These three debts were charged off in May, June and November 2001 respectively. Applicant has contacted the creditor and stated she would have payments deducted from her pay starting in August 2006. No proof of payments were provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g is an account from a retail store. She stated she had paid it off, but later found out more was owed. She settled and repaid the debt with two payments completed in November 2006. The debt was originally sent to collection in September 2001. It appears that this is the same debt as listed in SOR ¶ 1.l.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h, Applicant claims is the same as in ¶ 1. b, but provided no proof of the duplication or that it is paid. Applicant admits to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.j, but disputes the amount. No proof of resolution was provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.g

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.k was placed for collection in March 2006. Applicant does not recognize the creditor. No proof of resolution was provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.m was for delinquent state taxes for tax year 2001. She repaid this debt.

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i–1.m

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES