ISCR Case 07-11833.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-11833.h1

grantedJul 11, 2008· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old retired U.S. Army sergeant was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to approximately $26,000 in financial delinquencies, including a $19,300 tax lien for the 1999 and 2001 tax years, which was not listed on his February 2007 security clearance application.

Disqualifying conditions F.1 and E.2 were raised, but mitigating conditions F.2, F.3, F.4, and E.3 were applied. The applicant successfully demonstrated that most of his financial issues stemmed from circumstances beyond his control, specifically a divorce and an unsuccessful business venture.

Furthermore, he actively addressed his financial situation by securing a consolidation loan and negotiating with creditors. His explanation for omitting the tax lien—that he was unaware of its existence—was found credible. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated that the majority of his financial delinquencies were due to circumstances beyond his control, including a divorce and an unsuccessful business venture.
He has taken significant steps to address his financial delinquencies, including obtaining a consolidation loan and negotiating with creditors.
The applicant's explanation for the omission of the tax lien on his security clearance application was deemed credible, as he was unaware of its existence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant had a history of financial delinquencies.
E.2raisedPersonal ConductThe applicant omitted a tax lien from his security clearance application.

Mitigating

F.2appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the applicant's control.
F.3appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThere are clear indications that the financial problems are being resolved.
F.4appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.
E.3rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's omission was not deemed deliberate as he was unaware of the tax lien.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 20, 2008
Answer filedMar 10, 2008
Hearing heldMay 29, 2008
Decision dateJul 11, 2008

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Explanation for Omissions in Security Clearance Applications
Whole Person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

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 did not list the tax lien on his February 2007 security clearance application, as required.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant did not list the tax lien on his February 2007 security clearance application, as required.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

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

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

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—
1.g	Approximately $19,300 represents a tax lien for tax years 1999 and 2001. $19,300	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(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 (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.h–1.i	2 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–1.f

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

For Applicant

—

1.g

Approximately $19,300 represents a tax lien for tax years 1999 and 2001.

$19,300

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Unknown

(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

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.h–1.i

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

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

FOOTNOTES