ISCR Case 07-13491.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-13491.h1

deniedMar 14, 2008· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old administrative assistant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to numerous delinquent debts, totaling approximately $33,147, which included several credit card balances and judgments. These financial issues indicated an inability to meet financial obligations.

Further, the applicant failed to disclose these delinquent debts on her Security Clearance Application (SF 86) and provided false information regarding her financial status during the clearance process. These omissions and misrepresentations raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

While some mitigating conditions were considered, the judge ultimately found that the applicant's overall financial situation and the deliberate omission of critical information warranted the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $33,147, indicating an inability to meet financial obligations.
The applicant deliberately omitted relevant financial information from her security clearance application, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to her spouse's unemployment and health issues.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant and her spouse made efforts to negotiate payment plans for some debts.
AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant's financial situation was still not under control despite receiving legal advice.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2007
Answer filedNov 13, 2007
Hearing heldJan 29, 2008
Decision dateMar 14, 2008

Cite For

Financial Obligations and Their Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility
Deliberate Omission of Information on Security Clearance Applications
Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties and Personal Conduct

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 failed to disclose delinquent debts on her Security Clearance Application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant provided false information regarding her financial status during the security clearance process.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to disclose delinquent debts on her Security Clearance Application (SF 86).

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.b

Applicant provided false information regarding her financial status during the security clearance process.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Credit card $2,008 $2,008	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.b	Credit card $4,916 $4,916	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.c	Credit card $2,490 $2,490	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.d	Credit card $5,375 $5,375	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.e	Credit card $2,255 $2,255	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.f	Credit card $10,122 $10,122	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.g	Judgment $2,218 $2,218	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.h	Judgment $6,886 $6,886	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.i	Judgment $2,877 $2,877	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Credit card $2,008

$2,008

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.b

Credit card $4,916

$4,916

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.c

Credit card $2,490

$2,490

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

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

Documented

Payment Plan with Creditor

1.d

Credit card $5,375

$5,375

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.e

Credit card $2,255

$2,255

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.f

Credit card $10,122

$10,122

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.g

Judgment $2,218

$2,218

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

1.h

Judgment $6,886

$6,886

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

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

Documented

Payment Plan with Creditor

1.i

Judgment $2,877

$2,877

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION