Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 32-year-old seeking a public trust position, faced security clearance denial due to significant financial difficulties, personal conduct issues, and a history of criminal conduct. The judge found that the applicant's failure to resolve overdue debts and provide accurate information on her application demonstrated a lack of judgment and reliability.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant answered "No" to the question about being over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s) and listed no debts, despite having debts that were delinquent for more than 180 days (2.a). In October 2004, Applicant was terminated from her position as a Patient Access Representative at a medical college for failure to follow rules (2.b). During a period from December 2002 through February 2007, Applicant wrote nine checks that were returned by her bank for insufficient funds. Applicant never repaid the creditors for these “bad” checks (2.c). This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $5,086. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.a). This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $88. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.b). This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $60. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.c). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $50. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.d). This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $55. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.e). This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $39. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.f). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $30. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.g). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $51. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.h). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $49. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.i). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $45. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was not hers. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt was not incurred by Applicant or that it has been resolved (1.j). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $828. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.k). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $526. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.l). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,256. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.m). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $90. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.n). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,138. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.o). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,120 In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was paid. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved (1.p). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,447. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was not hers. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt was not incurred by Applicant or that it has been resolved (1.q). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,106. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.r). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,428. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was not hers. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt was not incurred by Applicant or that it has been resolved (1.s). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $442. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.t). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $3,296. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that she has thus far paid $1,300 on this debt, and she is continuing making payments on this debt. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been partially paid or is being paid by Applicant (1.u). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $449. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.v). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $419. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.w). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $121. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.x). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,041. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was not hers, but she has submitted the paperwork to have the bill paid by insurance carrier. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt was not incurred by Applicant or that it has been resolved (1.y). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $401. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that this debt was not hers, but she has submitted the paperwork to have the bill paid by insurance carrier. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt was not incurred by Applicant or that it has been resolved (1.z). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $382. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.aa). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $121. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.ab). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $170. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.ac). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $732. In her RSOR, Applicant stated that she has thus far paid $400 on this debt, and she is continuing making payments on this debt. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been partially paid or is being paid by Applicant (1.ad). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $12. No evidence has been introduced to establish that any of this debt has been paid or resolved (1.ae). This overdue debt to is cited in the SOR in the amount of $40,999 for 12 student loans. In her RSOR, Applicant acknowledged that this debt for student loans is hers, but she stated that she is still in school. No evidence has been introduced to establish if this debt is now deferred or what the current status of this debt (1.af). On March 22, 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving with a License Suspended or Revoked. She plead nolo Contendere and was sentenced to 12 months probation and ordered to pay a fine of $625 (3.a). On September 30, 2003, Applicant was arrested and charged with Failing to Appear. As a result, she paid a fine of $913 (3.b). On May 18, 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with a Probation Violation. Applicant was ordered to pay a fine of $285 (3.c). On October 6, 2004, Applicant was arrested charged with Theft by Taking, a felon. This charge was later nolle presequi (3.d). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s continued conduct, described in paragraph 2.c., above, are considered misdemeanor offenses under Georgia Code Section 16-9-20 (3.e).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 19(a), DC 19(c), DC 16(a), DC 16(d), DC 31(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had a history of financial difficulties, including multiple overdue debts and a pending bankruptcy; The applicant provided false information on her security clearance application regarding her debts; The applicant's criminal history included multiple arrests and issuance of bad checks, indicating a pattern of dishonesty.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant had a history of financial difficulties, including multiple overdue debts and a pending bankruptcy.
• The applicant provided false information on her security clearance application regarding her debts.
• The applicant's criminal history included multiple arrests and issuance of bad checks, indicating a pattern of dishonesty.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedMar 24, 2008
• Answer filedMay 7, 2008Applicant requested decision on written record.
• Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
• Decision dateApr 27, 2009

Cite For

• Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
• Failure to Disclose Significant Debts Under Guideline E
• Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J