ISCR Case 15-04284.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04284.h1

grantedJun 7, 2017· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old former military service member was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,000 and the omission of these debts on his SF-86.

The applicant successfully resolved $29,421 of the alleged $31,761 in debt. Specific debts, including a $198 cable debt, a $921 debt, a $23,593 medical debt, a $63 cable debt, a $1,407 credit card debt, and a $564 credit card debt, were all paid between July 2014 and May 2016. A $2,675 judgment was also resolved, with the applicant being informed no payment was due. For three remaining debts ($1,248, $921, and $171), the applicant was unable to locate the creditors despite attempts to contact them.

The judge found that the circumstances leading to the delinquencies were largely beyond the applicant's control, primarily attributed to his former wife's financial mismanagement during his military service. The omission of debts on the SF-86 was deemed possibly negligent but not intentional. Based on the resolution of most debts and the mitigating circumstances, the judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations, granting eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved $29,421 of the $31,761 alleged debt, demonstrating financial responsibility.
The circumstances leading to the debts were largely attributed to the applicant's former wife's financial mismanagement during his military service.
The applicant's omission of debts on the SF-86 was found to be possibly negligent, but not intentional.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.20.aappliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
F.20.brejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlInsufficient evidence to establish full mitigation as the applicant did not provide evidence of responsible attempts to address debts while accumulating.
F.20.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
F.20.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
F.20.erejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 5, 2016
Answer filedMay 21, 2016
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateJun 7, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Resolution of Debts
Negligent Omission of Debts on SF-86 Not Constituting Intentional Falsification Under Guideline E
Consideration of Personal Circumstances Affecting Financial Responsibility.

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 falsified his answers to a financial question on his SF-86, because he failed to disclose delinquent debts.	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 falsified his answers to a financial question on his SF-86, because he failed to disclose delinquent debts.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was not aware of this $1,248 debt and cannot locate the creditor. He said he has called a listed phone number for the creditor and left messages, but has not received a return call. $1,248	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has been unable to locate the provider for this medical debt for $921. He said he is working with a financial advisor to dispute it. $921	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant has been unable to locate the creditor for this $171 debt. He has left messages on the creditor’s voicemail and has not received a response. $171	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The judgment for $2,675 is resolved. On July 13, 2013, the court entered a Final Judgment for Possession after Applicant vacated the rental property. Applicant said he telephoned the clerk’s office and was told that no payment is due from him. $2,675	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	The $198 cable debt was paid May 2016. $198	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	The $921 debt was resolved in May 2016. $921	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	The $23,593 medical debt was resolved in April 2016. $23,593	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	The $63 cable debt was owed to the same creditor listed in ¶ 1.e above. Applicant said it is resolved. $63	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	The $1,407 credit card debt was paid in December 2014. $1,407	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	The $564 credit card debt was paid in July 2014. $564	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was not aware of this $1,248 debt and cannot locate the creditor. He said he has called a listed phone number for the creditor and left messages, but has not received a return call.

$1,248

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant has been unable to locate the provider for this medical debt for $921. He said he is working with a financial advisor to dispute it.

$921

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant has been unable to locate the creditor for this $171 debt. He has left messages on the creditor’s voicemail and has not received a response.

$171

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.d

The judgment for $2,675 is resolved. On July 13, 2013, the court entered a Final Judgment for Possession after Applicant vacated the rental property. Applicant said he telephoned the clerk’s office and was told that no payment is due from him.

$2,675

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

1.e

The $198 cable debt was paid May 2016.

$198

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

1.f

The $921 debt was resolved in May 2016.

$921

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.g

The $23,593 medical debt was resolved in April 2016.

$23,593

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.h

The $63 cable debt was owed to the same creditor listed in ¶ 1.e above. Applicant said it is resolved.

$63

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

1.i

The $1,407 credit card debt was paid in December 2014.

$1,407

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

—

1.j

The $564 credit card debt was paid in July 2014.

$564

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

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

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES