ISCR Case 07-14984.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-14984.h1

deniedNov 5, 2008· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed multiple delinquent debts and an intentional falsification of his 2007 SF 86 security clearance application.

Under Guideline F, the applicant admitted to owing several debts, including a medical debt of $802, a $4,853 debt to a collection company on behalf of a financial institution, and a $604 debt to a collection company. He also admitted to an $8,421 debt but provided information suggesting he was not responsible. Additionally, the SOR alleged delinquent debts of $1,371 and $2,501 to the same bank, a $28 debt to a collection company, and a $358 debt to a different collection company. The applicant denied owing other alleged debts, including medical debts of $5,633, $944, and $1,096, and collection debts of $370, $1,978, and $179.

Under Guideline E, the applicant intentionally falsified his SF 86 in 2007. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, specifically failing to make payments on multiple delinquent debts over several years and intentionally falsifying his financial obligations on the SF 86. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to make payments on multiple delinquent debts over several years.
The applicant intentionally falsified his responses on the SF 86 regarding his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

F.20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant attributed his financial problems to low-paying jobs in the past.
F.20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtSome debts were not listed on the most recent credit reports.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 7, 2008
Answer filedApr 29, 2008Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 9, 2008Hearing rescheduled due to severe weather.
Decision dateNov 5, 2008

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Intentional Falsification of Information on the SF 86 Under Guideline E
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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 intentionally falsified his SF 86 in 2007.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant intentionally falsified his SF 86 in 2007.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.b

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted owing the medical debt of $802, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. $802	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant denied owing the medical debts of $5,633 and $944, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c. $5,633	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant denied owing the medical debts of $5,633 and $944, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c. $944	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied owing the debt of $370 to a collection company on behalf of a cellular telephone services company, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. $370	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant admitted owing the $4,853 debt to a collection company, on behalf of a financial institution, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e. $4,853	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f and 1.g allege delinquent debts of $1,371 and $2,501 to the same bank. $1,371	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.f and 1.g allege delinquent debts of $1,371 and $2,501 to the same bank. $2,501	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant denied owing the debt of $1,978 to a collection company on behalf of a financial institution, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. $1,978	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	SOR ¶ 1.i alleges a delinquent debt of $604 to a collection company. Applicant admitted owing this debt. $604	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant denied owing the debt of $179 to a collection company on behalf of a telephone services company, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j. $179	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.k	A debt of $28 to the same collection company on behalf of the same telephone services company is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. $28	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.l	SOR ¶ 1.l alleges a delinquent debt of $1,096 to a collection company for a medical debt. Applicant denied owing this debt. $1,096	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.m	Applicant admitted to the debt of $8,421, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m, but provided additional information to suggest that he was not responsible for the debt. $8,421	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Applicant admitted to SOR ¶ 1.n, but indicated the debts were duplicates of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.f. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.o	SOR ¶ 1.o as a debt of $358 to a different collection company. $358	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted owing the medical debt of $802, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.

$802

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Applicant denied owing the medical debts of $5,633 and $944, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c.

$5,633

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant denied owing the medical debts of $5,633 and $944, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c.

$944

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant denied owing the debt of $370 to a collection company on behalf of a cellular telephone services company, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d.

$370

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant admitted owing the $4,853 debt to a collection company, on behalf of a financial institution, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e.

$4,853

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

SOR ¶ 1.f and 1.g allege delinquent debts of $1,371 and $2,501 to the same bank.

$1,371

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.g

SOR ¶ 1.f and 1.g allege delinquent debts of $1,371 and $2,501 to the same bank.

$2,501

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

Applicant denied owing the debt of $1,978 to a collection company on behalf of a financial institution, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h.

$1,978

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.i

SOR ¶ 1.i alleges a delinquent debt of $604 to a collection company. Applicant admitted owing this debt.

$604

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.j

Applicant denied owing the debt of $179 to a collection company on behalf of a telephone services company, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j.

$179

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.k

A debt of $28 to the same collection company on behalf of the same telephone services company is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k.

$28

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.l

SOR ¶ 1.l alleges a delinquent debt of $1,096 to a collection company for a medical debt. Applicant denied owing this debt.

$1,096

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.m

Applicant admitted to the debt of $8,421, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m, but provided additional information to suggest that he was not responsible for the debt.

$8,421

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.n

Applicant admitted to SOR ¶ 1.n, but indicated the debts were duplicates of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.f.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.o

SOR ¶ 1.o as a debt of $358 to a different collection company.

$358

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES