ISCR Case 09-04976.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04976.h1

grantedSep 26, 2011· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A linguist deployed to Afghanistan was evaluated for a security clearance, raising concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged several past due debts, including amounts of approximately $490, $75, $2,641, $59, and $10,000. Additionally, the applicant had filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in April 1998. A key concern under personal conduct was the applicant's February 2009 e-QIP, where he answered "No" to questions regarding debts turned over to collection, suspended accounts, or delinquencies over 90 or 180 days within the preceding seven years.

Disqualifying conditions F.19.a, F.19.c, and E.16.e were raised. However, mitigating conditions F.20.b, F.20.d, and E.17.e were applied. The judge found that the applicant had taken responsible steps to address his financial obligations, demonstrating a positive monthly cash flow. His financial difficulties were largely attributed to circumstances beyond his control, such as a business downturn.

The applicant's credibility was further supported by testimonials and certificates of appreciation for his service. Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant had demonstrated trustworthiness, and his eligibility for a security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a positive monthly cash flow and addressed past due debts responsibly.
The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, such as a business downturn.
The applicant's credibility was supported by testimonials and certificates of appreciation for his service.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.16.eraisedConcealment of Information About One’s Conduct

Mitigating

F.20.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
F.20.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
E.17.eappliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“The Administrative Judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 9, 2010
Answer filedJul 22, 2010
Hearing heldApr 13, 2011Applicant was deployed, causing rescheduling.
Decision dateSep 26, 2011

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Difficulties Due to Business Downturn Under Guideline F
Credibility Assessment in Personal Conduct Cases Under Guideline E
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations

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	When the Applicant executed his e-QIP in February of 2009, he answered “No,” that “for the last 7 years,” as to any “bills or debts turned over to a collection agency”; as to “any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed”; as to being “over 180 days delinquent on any debts(s)”; and as to being “currently over 90 days delinquent on any deb(s).”	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Financial	Denied	—	(e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation	—
2.b–2.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

When the Applicant executed his e-QIP in February of 2009, he answered “No,” that “for the last 7 years,” as to any “bills or debts turned over to a collection agency”; as to “any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed”; as to being “over 180 days delinquent on any debts(s)”; and as to being “currently over 90 days delinquent on any deb(s).”

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

Financial

Denied

—

(e) positive steps to reduce vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.b–2.e

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $490. $490	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.b	It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $75. $75	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.c	It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $2,641. $2,641	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.d	It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about $59. $59	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.e	It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $10,000. $10,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.f	In April of 1998, the Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $490.

$490

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

1.b

It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $75.

$75

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

1.c

It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $2,641.

$2,641

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

1.d

It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about $59.

$59

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

1.e

It is alleged that the Applicant has a past due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $10,000.

$10,000

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

1.f

In April of 1998, the Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

For Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Admitted

—

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

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

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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