Summary
The applicant, a 58-year-old engineer with a history of military service, faced security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations) due to significant delinquent debts and intentional falsification of his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant intentionally falsified his SF 86 when he failed to report his delinquent debts (2.a). Applicant admitted owing the $1,941 and $333 (duplicate of SOR ¶ 1.d) department store accounts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.n, but he stated the accounts were used by his ex-wife (1.b). Applicant admitted owing the medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c ($686), 1.f ($461), and 1.h ($250) (1.c). Applicant admitted owing the medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c ($686), 1.f ($461), and 1.h ($250) (1.f). Applicant admitted owing the $368 utilities account (SOR ¶ 1.g) (1.g). Applicant admitted owing the medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c ($686), 1.f ($461), and 1.h ($250) (1.h). Applicant admitted owing the $95 debt owed to the city where he used to live (SOR ¶ 1.m) (1.m).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19(a), F.19(c), E.16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20(b), F.20(c), E.17(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent debts; The applicant intentionally falsified his SF 86 by omitting relevant financial information; The applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent debts.
- The applicant intentionally falsified his SF 86 by omitting relevant financial information.
- The applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlWhile the applicant attributed his financial issues to external factors, he did not act responsibly to resolve them.
- F.20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant received financial counseling, but it did not indicate that the problem was under control.
- E.17(a)rejectedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not make prompt efforts to correct the omissions on his SF 86.
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 issuedJan 21, 2015
- Answer filedFeb 26, 2015
- Hearing heldJun 21, 2016
- Decision dateAug 30, 2016
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
- Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Application
- Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility