ISCR Case 05-16746.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-16746.h1

grantedOct 24, 2007· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old retired military technician was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged approximately $16,600 in disputed, delinquent debt on his credit reports and that he failed to disclose these delinquencies on his August 2005 security clearance application. The applicant contended he had no prior debt payment issues and thus no reason to review his credit report before completing the application.

The judge found that the applicant did not falsify his security clearance application, thereby not violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as alleged in the SOR. The applicant successfully mitigated the financial concerns by retaining an attorney who helped him dispute nearly half of the attributed delinquent debts, demonstrating they were erroneously reported.

The applicant was current on all undisputed debts and had no prior financial issues. Based on these mitigating factors, the judge concluded that the applicant had resolved the financial and personal conduct concerns, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully disputed nearly half of the delinquent debts attributed to him.
He retained an attorney who identified critical erroneous information on his credit reports.
The applicant was current on all undisputed debts and had no prior financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

FC DC 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
FC DC 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
FC DC 19(e)raisedConsistent Spending Beyond One’s Means
PC DC 16(a)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe applicant had no reason to review his credit report and did not knowingly omit delinquencies.
CR DC 30notedCriminal Activity Creates Doubt About a Person’s Judgment

Mitigating

FC MC 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt
PC MC 17appliedThe Individual Did Not Deliberately Provide False Information

Key Rule Quoted

“The issuance of the clearance is 'clearly consistent with the national interest.'”
— Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 27, 2007
Answer filedJul 10, 2007
Hearing heldSep 11, 2007Record left open until October 2, 2007 for additional documents.
Decision dateOct 24, 2007

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Erroneous Debts
Rejection of Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions Based on Lack of Intent
Successful Dispute of Delinquent Debts Attributed to the Applicant Erroneously

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 completed a security clearance application in August 2005. He did not disclose any of the delinquencies, as required.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant has never had any problems paying his debts on time. Therefore, he had no reason to review a credit report when he executed it.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant completed a security clearance application in August 2005. He did not disclose any of the delinquencies, as required.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant has never had any problems paying his debts on time. Therefore, he had no reason to review a credit report when he executed it.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Approximately $16,600 of disputed, delinquent debt has appeared on Applicant’s credit reports. $16,600	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
1.b–1.k	10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Approximately $16,600 of disputed, delinquent debt has appeared on Applicant’s credit reports.

$16,600

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt

—

1.b–1.k

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant did not falsify his security clearance application, therefore he did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001, as alleged in the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant did not falsify his security clearance application, therefore he did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001, as alleged in the SOR.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

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

CONCLUSION

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES