Summary
The applicant, a 43-year-old insulator employed by a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to allegations of falsifying his security clearance application and having delinquent debts. While he mitigated concerns related to past drug use, he failed to adequately address his financial issues, 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 was arrested and charged with use and possession of cocaine in 1993 (2.a). Applicant was arrested and charged with use and possession of cocaine in 1994 (2.b). Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'no' to the question whether he was ever charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs (2.c). Applicant made a false statement during his September 2014 PSI by stating that his two positive urinalyses for cocaine in 1993 and 1994 were caused by his use of prescription medications rather than cocaine (2.d). Applicant made a false statement during his September 2014 PSI by stating that his two positive urinalyses for cocaine in 1993 and 1994 were caused by his use of prescription medications rather than cocaine (2.e). Applicant falsified his SCA by answering 'no' to financial questions in Section 26 of his SCA (2.f). failure to “file and/or pay” state taxes (1.a). judgment for $950, filed in 2008 (1.b). collection account for $1,950 (1.c). collection account for $760 (1.d). collection account for telephone service for $506 (1.e). collection accounts for cable service for $170 (1.f). collection accounts for cable service for $137 (1.g). deficiency of $15,050 after vehicle repossession (1.h).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(b). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant did not take action to resolve multiple delinquent debts, demonstrating a lack of responsibility; He failed to provide truthful answers regarding his financial obligations on his security clearance application; The applicant's past drug-related conduct raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant did not take action to resolve multiple delinquent debts, demonstrating a lack of responsibility.
- He failed to provide truthful answers regarding his financial obligations on his security clearance application.
- The applicant's past drug-related conduct raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's delinquent debts are numerous and recent.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile the applicant experienced significant personal loss, he did not act responsibly regarding his debts.
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedIndividual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant made efforts to resolve his state tax debt.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 11, 2015
- Answer filedFeb 4, 2016
- Hearing heldJun 7, 2016
- Decision dateSep 16, 2016
Cite For
- Failure to Resolve Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
- Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility.