ISCR Case 09-04036.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04036.h1

deniedSep 30, 2010· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old defense contractor and former Air Force member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs, and multiple unresolved financial debts.

Specific financial issues included an unpaid $21,405 judgment from a 2007 vehicle repossession and an outstanding $10,083 enlistment bonus repayment, partially offset by a $2,920 tax refund and scheduled for a 36-month payment plan beginning September 2010. While the applicant resolved several smaller medical debts totaling $28, $690, $593, and $886, and settled a $5,136 debt for $2,568 in July 2010, significant financial obligations remained.

Despite some positive behavioral changes and efforts to manage finances, the judge found insufficient evidence of consistent and concrete plans to resolve the remaining debts, which included approximately $17,000 in delinquent debts and the $21,405 judgment. This, combined with the alcohol-related incidents, led to a determination of insufficient trustworthiness, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $17,000 and a judgment of $21,405, indicating an inability to manage financial obligations.
The applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs, raises concerns about reliability and judgment despite some mitigating factors.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a concrete plan to address his financial debts, undermining claims of financial stability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was Infrequent
AG ¶ 23(a)appliedTime Has Passed or Behavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Issues and Responsible Use

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 2, 2010
Answer filedMar 8, 2010
Hearing heldJul 20, 2010
Decision dateSep 30, 2010

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Under Guideline G
Consideration of Personal Conduct and Honesty in Security Clearance Applications 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	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a judgment filed in June 2008. The amount of $21,405 is the result of Applicant’s 2007 vehicle repossession. Applicant acknowledged that this debt is unpaid. $21,405	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b for $10,083 is the result of an enlistment bonus that he had to return. Applicant’s federal tax refund ($2,920) was applied to this account on February 5, 2010. He has arranged for a 36-month payment plan that will begin in September 2010 to repay the remainder. $10,083	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c for $28. The account is for a medical bill. The account is now paid in full. $28	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $690. This account was paid on April 23, 2010. $690	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant resolved the medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for $593. The account is now paid. $593	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant claims the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $886 is the same account as above. He claims this medical account is paid. $886	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant settled and paid the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g for $2,568 in July 2010. The original amount of the debt was $5,136. $2,568	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a judgment filed in June 2008. The amount of $21,405 is the result of Applicant’s 2007 vehicle repossession. Applicant acknowledged that this debt is unpaid.

$21,405

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Applicant’s debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b for $10,083 is the result of an enlistment bonus that he had to return. Applicant’s federal tax refund ($2,920) was applied to this account on February 5, 2010. He has arranged for a 36-month payment plan that will begin in September 2010 to repay the remainder.

$10,083

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

Applicant admits the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c for $28. The account is for a medical bill. The account is now paid in full.

$28

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $690. This account was paid on April 23, 2010.

$690

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant resolved the medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for $593. The account is now paid.

$593

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant claims the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $886 is the same account as above. He claims this medical account is paid.

$886

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant settled and paid the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g for $2,568 in July 2010. The original amount of the debt was $5,136.

$2,568

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.b	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.c	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.b

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.c

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

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