ISCR Case 14-03116.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03116.h1

deniedAug 31, 2015· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old defense contractor was denied a public trust position due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling $24,002 and failed to disclose these on her e-QIP. Specific debts included a mortgage foreclosure with a past-due amount of $20,319, a mobile telephone service debt of $1,946, a telephone company debt of $465, a bank debt of $59 from 2011, and a cable television provider debt of $21 from 2009.

The Statement of Reasons highlighted the applicant's failure to disclose these financial delinquencies, particularly the mortgage foreclosure which necessitated a move. The applicant also claimed an inability to remember or contact creditors for some older debts, which prompt payment could have avoided. While some debts were resolved, the applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or consistent effort to resolve all outstanding issues.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to disclose significant financial delinquencies, indicating a lack of candor and poor judgment. This, combined with the absence of financial counseling and unresolved debts, undermined her reliability and trustworthiness for a public trust position.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose significant financial delinquencies on her e-QIP, indicating a lack of candor and poor judgment.
The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or demonstrate a consistent effort to resolve all debts, leaving unresolved issues that raised trustworthiness concerns.
The applicant's financial issues and lack of disclosure were deemed to undermine her reliability and trustworthiness for a public trust position.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under ControlThe applicant did not receive financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise ResolvedWhile some debts were resolved, significant debts remained unresolved.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 30, 2014
Answer filedOct 14, 2014Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 31, 2015

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Considerations Impacting Trustworthiness Under Guideline F
Importance of Full Disclosure of Financial Issues in Security Clearance Determinations

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 did not disclose her financial delinquencies as alleged in SOR Paragraph 2. She did not list her mortgage foreclosure, which must have been present in her mind because it resulted in a move from one city and state where that house existed, to another city and state, and she then became a renter. The other debts are telephone bills and cable television debts, plus a few other debts of uncertain origin. Applicant waited so long to pay them that she then claimed she could not remember them or could not contact her creditor to pay them. Prompt debt payments would have alleviated that excuse. Also, disclosure of any delinquent debt under “Additional Comments” at the end of the e-QIP might have mitigated her failure to be specific in Section 26 of the e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant did not disclose her financial delinquencies as alleged in SOR Paragraph 2. She did not list her mortgage foreclosure, which must have been present in her mind because it resulted in a move from one city and state where that house existed, to another city and state, and she then became a renter. The other debts are telephone bills and cable television debts, plus a few other debts of uncertain origin. Applicant waited so long to pay them that she then claimed she could not remember them or could not contact her creditor to pay them. Prompt debt payments would have alleviated that excuse. Also, disclosure of any delinquent debt under “Additional Comments” at the end of the e-QIP might have mitigated her failure to be specific in Section 26 of the e-QIP.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's mortgage was in foreclosure with the past-due amount of $20,319 on a loan balance of $175,394 $20,319	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant owed a mobile telephone service $1,946 $1,946	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.h	Applicant owes a bank $59 from 2011 $59	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant owed another cable television provider $21 since 2009 $21	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.j	Applicant owed a telephone company $465 $465	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's mortgage was in foreclosure with the past-due amount of $20,319 on a loan balance of $175,394

$20,319

Against Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Applicant owed a mobile telephone service $1,946

$1,946

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

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

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.h

Applicant owes a bank $59 from 2011

$59

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i

Applicant owed another cable television provider $21 since 2009

$21

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

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

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.j

Applicant owed a telephone company $465

$465

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

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

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

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