ISCR Case 08-03110.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-03110.h1

deniedOct 31, 2008· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old software developer was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant, ongoing financial issues and intentional omissions on his security clearance application. The judge determined that the applicant's financial problems were not adequately addressed, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant admitted to owing $4,032 in unpaid credit card and medical debts. He also acknowledged an additional $1,950 in debts after initially denying them. While he believed two judgments from 1998 and 1999 were paid, he provided no proof. One debt from September 2008 was reported with a zero balance, and several other challenged debts were removed from his credit report.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant had over $10,000 in significant unpaid debts and failed to demonstrate a willingness to resolve them. Furthermore, he intentionally omitted material financial information from his application, which questioned his honesty and trustworthiness. His ongoing, unresolved financial issues indicated a lack of judgment and self-control.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had significant unpaid debts totaling over $10,000 and failed to demonstrate a willingness to resolve them.
The applicant intentionally omitted material financial information from his security clearance application, raising questions about his honesty and trustworthiness.
The applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved, indicating a lack of judgment and self-control.

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 Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems stemmed from a business downturn.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant had not made efforts to resolve his remaining debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedCounseling for Financial ProblemsThe applicant had not received financial counseling.

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 issuedJun 18, 2008
Answer filedJul 14, 2008
Hearing heldSep 8, 2008
Decision dateOct 31, 2008

Cite For

Intentional Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
The Importance of Demonstrating Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts in Security Clearance Cases

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	deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.b–2.d

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted that he owed, but has not paid the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.i, and 1.q, which total $4,032. These debts relate to credit cards, except for 1.q, which is a medical bill. $4,032	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The September 2008 credit report indicates a zero balance for the debt listed in allegation 1.b. $0	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant believes that two judgments listed in SOR allegations 1.f and 1.h are the same. The record reflects that the creditor for the debt in allegation 1.h obtained a judgment in 1998 and a second judgment for a lesser amount in 1999. Applicant also believed he paid these judgments a long time ago, but has not provided proof of payment. $0	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	Applicant denied owing the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.e and 1.r, totaling $1,950, in his response to the SOR, but acknowledged the debts at the hearing. $1,950	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant believes that two judgments listed in SOR allegations 1.f and 1.h are the same. The record reflects that the creditor for the debt in allegation 1.h obtained a judgment in 1998 and a second judgment for a lesser amount in 1999. Applicant also believed he paid these judgments a long time ago, but has not provided proof of payment. $0	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant believes that two judgments listed in SOR allegations 1.f and 1.h are the same. The record reflects that the creditor for the debt in allegation 1.h obtained a judgment in 1998 and a second judgment for a lesser amount in 1999. Applicant also believed he paid these judgments a long time ago, but has not provided proof of payment. $0	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.j	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.k	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.m	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.n	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.o	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.p	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted that he owed, but has not paid the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.i, and 1.q, which total $4,032. These debts relate to credit cards, except for 1.q, which is a medical bill.

$4,032

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

The September 2008 credit report indicates a zero balance for the debt listed in allegation 1.b.

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant believes that two judgments listed in SOR allegations 1.f and 1.h are the same. The record reflects that the creditor for the debt in allegation 1.h obtained a judgment in 1998 and a second judgment for a lesser amount in 1999. Applicant also believed he paid these judgments a long time ago, but has not provided proof of payment.

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

Applicant denied owing money to the insurance company identified as the creditor in SOR allegation 1.o and challenged this debt. As a result of his challenge, the debt has been removed from his credit report.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.e

Applicant denied owing the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.e and 1.r, totaling $1,950, in his response to the SOR, but acknowledged the debts at the hearing.

$1,950

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied with Explanation

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.g

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.h

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.j

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.k

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.l

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.m

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.n

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.o

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.p

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.q

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.r

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

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