CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-14455.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-14455.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-14455.h1

deniedJun 28, 2007· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to long-standing delinquent debts totaling $14,536.00. The Statement of Reasons detailed five past-due credit card debts, ranging from approximately $1,418.00 to $4,551.00, one of which had been placed for collection.

The applicant informed an investigator in February 2006 that he had ceased making payments on his credit debts in September 2002 and intended to contact creditors by April 2006. However, in his July 2006 response to DOHA interrogatories, he stated it was not in his best interest to contact these creditors until he was prepared to resolve the accounts in full.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to address these five past-due debts for many years and his inability to provide credible evidence of meaningful action taken to resolve them. The judge concluded that this financial irresponsibility adversely affected the applicant's judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has five past-due debts totaling $14,536.00 that he has not addressed for many years.
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of any meaningful action taken to resolve his debts.
The applicant's financial irresponsibility reflects adversely on his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The evidence establishes that applicant has five debts, totaling $14,536.00, that have been past-due for many years.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2006
Answer filedNov 11, 2006Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJun 28, 2007

Cite For

Failure to Address Long-standing Delinquent Debts Under Guideline E
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Demonstrate Financial Reform

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 all allegations related to personal conduct under Guideline E. The applicant's long-standing delinquent debts were deemed to reflect adversely on his judgment and reliability, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $1,418.00. This credit card debt is past-due.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $4,551.00. This credit card debt is past-due.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $3,733.00. This credit card debt is past-due.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $2,305.00. The credit card debt is past-due and was placed for collection.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.e	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $2,529.00. This credit card debt is past-due.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.f	In February 2006, applicant told an investigator that he had stopped making payments on his “credit debts” in September 2002. He further stated that he would initiate contact with each of his creditors by April 2006 in order to address the debts.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.g	In his July 2006 response to interrogatories sent to him by DOHA, applicant stated it was not in his best interests to contact the creditors referred to in SOR Allegations 1.a. through 1.e. until he was prepared to resolve the accounts in full.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Financial	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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

Full decision

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

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial

DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to address his long-standing delinquent debts precludes a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 06-14455.h1

DATE: 06/28/2007

DATE: June 28, 2007

) ) In Re: ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-14455 ---------------- ) SSN: ----------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS Applicant’s failure to address his long-standing delinquent debts precludes a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on November 11, 2006, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about March 2, 2007. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 24, 2007.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 46 year old employee of a defense contractor.

SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $1,418.00. This credit card debt is past-due.

SOR Allegation 1b: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $4,551.00. This credit card debt is past-due.

SOR Allegation 1c: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $3,733.00. This credit card debt is past-due.

SOR Allegation 1d: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $2,305.00. The credit card debt is past-due and was placed for collection.

SOR Allegation 1e: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $2,529.00. This credit card debt is past-due.

SOR Allegation 1f: In February 2006, applicant told an investigator that he had stopped making payments on his “credit debts” in September 2002. He further stated that he would initiate contact with each of his creditors by April 2006 in order to address the debts. SOR Allegation 1g: In his July 2006 response to interrogatories sent to him by DOHA, applicant stated it was not in his best interests to contact the creditors referred to in SOR Allegations 1.a. through 1.e. until he was prepared to resolve the accounts in full. He further stated “I will assure you that it is my intention to pay all this debt over the next 18 months.”

In his response to the SOR, applicant stated he intends to pay off one of his delinquent debts in November, another one in January, and then continuing paying them off one by one until all five are paid.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant has five debts, totaling $14,536.00, that have been past-due for many years. Applicant’s failure to honor his financial obligations reflects adversely on his judgment and reliability, and suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) are applicable.

Once the Government established a prima facie case under Guideline F, the burden shifted to applicant to show he has reformed. Applicant failed to meet his burden. Although on at least two occasions he stated he intended to begin addressing the five credit card debts, he offered no credible evidence that he (1) has followed through with his stated intention and taken any meaningful action to address any of them, (2) is in a position to significantly reduce this past-due indebtedness anytime soon, or (2) is unlikely to experience additional financial difficulties. Applicant does not qualify for any Mitigating Condition, and Guideline F is found against him.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.

____________________________

Applicant believes that if he initiates contact with his creditors, his accounts may be “reactivated,” which may result in additional fees and interest. He further believes that he can avoid this risk if he is in a position to resolve his accounts in full when he initiates contact. Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT J. Theodore Hammer, Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT Pro Se