Summary
The applicant, a 61-year-old security specialist, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to intentional misrepresentation of his financial status on his security clearance application. Despite resolving all listed debts, the judge found that the applicant's deliberate omission of debts over 120 days delinquent raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: In his August 6, 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA), Applicant intentionally and falsely denied he had debts he knew were over 120 days delinquent in the previous seven years (2.a). Applicant answered 'no' to these five questions (2.b). SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a judgment filed against Applicant in April 2014 for $1,032 (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a collection account for a $1,395 apartment-related debt. On March 15, 2016, Applicant paid $1,378, and the creditor said the debt had a zero balance (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a charged-off debt owed to a bank for $34,314 (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a charged-off debt owed to a bank for $3,864 (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a past-due debt for $1,764. On November 7, 2016, the creditor wrote that the final payment of $47 on a $3,188 debt was received on November 6, 2014 (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a collection account owed to a bank for $1,020. This is the same debt as in SOR ¶ 1.a (1.f). SOR ¶ 1.g alleges a collection account owed to a telecommunication company for $262. The creditor wrote that the debt was settled in full on September 18, 2015 (1.g). SOR ¶ 1.h alleges a collection account owed for a medical debt for $75. Applicant telephoned the creditor, and he was advised the creditor did not have any information on the debt (1.h). SOR ¶ 1.i alleges a collection debt owed for parking tickets for $65 (1.i). SOR ¶ 1.j alleges a collection debt owed for parking tickets for $65 (1.j). SOR ¶ 1.k alleges a collection debt owed for parking tickets for $55 (1.k). SOR ¶ 1.l alleges a collection debt owed for parking tickets for $50 (1.l).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant intentionally and falsely denied having debts over 120 days delinquent on his security clearance application; The applicant's conduct involved a lack of candor and honesty, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant intentionally and falsely denied having debts over 120 days delinquent on his security clearance application.
- The applicant's conduct involved a lack of candor and honesty, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 27, 2015
- Answer filedSep 18, 2015
- Hearing heldSep 12, 2016
- Decision dateJan 23, 2017
Cite For
- Intentional Misrepresentation of Financial Status Under Guideline E
- Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Financial Obligations and Their Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F