ISCR Case 15-03805.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03805.h1

grantedNov 16, 2016· Hon. Stephanie C. Hess· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old general clerk employed by a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations of delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,902 and intentionally falsifying her e-QIP by failing to disclose these debts.

The applicant demonstrated that many financial issues were beyond her control, including significant medical costs from an injury requiring surgery and her husband's unemployment. While she admitted to a $6,519 debt from a voluntarily repossessed vehicle and an unresolved $821 judgment, she had paid a $2,397 medical debt and several other related bills. Additionally, she incurred four federal student loans between 2006 and 2007.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to unforeseen circumstances. She has since taken proactive steps to manage her finances, including entering loan rehabilitation programs and maintaining a budget. Crucially, she has not incurred any new delinquent debts since January 2013 and has made significant progress in resolving her existing obligations.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, including unexpected medical expenses and her husband's unemployment.
She has taken proactive steps to manage her finances, including entering loan rehabilitation programs and maintaining a budget.
The applicant has not incurred any new delinquent debts since January 2013 and has made significant progress in resolving her existing debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is an evaluation of a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. It is not a debt-collection procedure.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 8, 2015
Answer filedDec 23, 2015
Hearing heldJul 27, 2016
Decision dateNov 16, 2016

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Issues Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Successful Demonstration of Financial Rehabilitation Efforts
Consideration of Personal Conduct in Relation to Unintentional Omissions in Security Clearance Applications

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	The SOR alleges that Applicant intentionally falsified her e-QIP by failing to disclose her delinquent debts as required.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant intentionally falsified her e-QIP by failing to disclose her delinquent debts as required.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

—

2.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred significant medical costs due to an injury which required surgery and resulted in significant medical costs. Applicant was unable to afford these additional unanticipated expenses, and many of the debts became delinquent. However, Applicant paid the $2,397 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a and several other medical bills associated with this event. $2,397	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b–1.g	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—
1.h	Applicant purchased a vehicle from a local dealer with a very high interest rate loan. She soon realized that the payments were more than she could afford, and the vehicle was voluntarily repossessed. Applicant admits this $6,519 debt (SOR ¶ 1.h). $6,519	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i–1.k	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—
1.l	The $821 judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l is comprised in part of the $546 credit-card debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r and the $75 overdraft debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.w. Therefore, SOR ¶¶ 1.r and 1.w are duplicate debts. (Answer.) SOR ¶ 1.l is unresolved. (low confidence) $821	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Applicant took out four Federal student loans between 2006 and 2007 (SOR ¶¶ 1.m – 1.p). (low confidence)	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.n–1.x	11 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

Applicant incurred significant medical costs due to an injury which required surgery and resulted in significant medical costs. Applicant was unable to afford these additional unanticipated expenses, and many of the debts became delinquent. However, Applicant paid the $2,397 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a and several other medical bills associated with this event.

$2,397

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.b–1.g

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

For Applicant

—

1.h

Applicant purchased a vehicle from a local dealer with a very high interest rate loan. She soon realized that the payments were more than she could afford, and the vehicle was voluntarily repossessed. Applicant admits this $6,519 debt (SOR ¶ 1.h).

$6,519

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i–1.k

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

For Applicant

—

1.l

The $821 judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l is comprised in part of the $546 credit-card debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r and the $75 overdraft debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.w. Therefore, SOR ¶¶ 1.r and 1.w are duplicate debts. (Answer.) SOR ¶ 1.l is unresolved. (low confidence)

$821

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.m

Applicant took out four Federal student loans between 2006 and 2007 (SOR ¶¶ 1.m – 1.p). (low confidence)

For Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Unknown

—

1.n–1.x

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

For Applicant

—

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