ISCR Case 08-05379.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05379.h1

grantedAug 26, 2009· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor with two children was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to disclose an unpaid judgment and several delinquent debts on her July 10, 2007, Security Clearance Application. Specifically, she answered "No" to questions regarding unpaid judgments and debts over 180 days delinquent, and did not list several outstanding obligations.

The alleged debts included amounts ranging from $50 to $29,630, with some attributed to a vehicle, medical bills, and an unknown origin. During the hearing, it was stipulated that one judgment for $822 had been resolved. The applicant testified that she had paid two $50 debts, disputed a $1,027 debt due to potential identity theft, and believed other medical debts should have been covered by insurance. She also stated she only owed a $50 co-payment on a $2,452 debt, which she had paid.

The judge determined that the applicant did not intentionally provide incorrect information, mitigating concerns under Guideline E. Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to address her financial issues by consulting credit counseling services and planning to file for bankruptcy. These actions mitigated the security concerns under both guidelines, leading to the granting of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her overdue debts by consulting credit counseling services and planning to file for bankruptcy.
The applicant was found credible in her testimony regarding her lack of awareness of her debts due to personal circumstances.
No disqualifying conditions were found applicable under Guideline E as the applicant did not intentionally provide incorrect information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedFinancial Considerations
F.1.craisedFinancial Considerations
E.2.araisedPersonal Conduct
E.2.braisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

F.1.dappliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant engaged in credit counseling and made payments towards her debts.
E.2.aappliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's response to the SCA was accurate as the judgment was resolved prior to her application.
E.2.bappliedPersonal ConductThe applicant credibly testified that she was unaware of her debts at the time of the SCA.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 12, 2009
Answer filedMar 7, 2009
Hearing heldMay 26, 2009
Decision dateAug 26, 2009

Cite For

Mitigating Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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 executed a signed Security Clearance Application (SCA) on July 10, 2007 (Exhibit 1). Section 27:d. asked “In the last 7 years, have you had any judgments against you that have not been paid?"; to which she answered "No." In the SOR, the Government alleges that Applicant deliberately failed to list that he had an unpaid judgment filed against her within the last seven years, as set forth in subparagraph 1.c., above.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant responded "No" to Section 28:a., which asks, “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?” She also failed to list any debts. The SOR alleges that Applicant should have answered yes and included the debts listed as 1.a., 1.b., 1.d. through 1.g., as alleged in the SOR.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant responded "No" to Section 28:b., which asks, “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant executed a signed Security Clearance Application (SCA) on July 10, 2007 (Exhibit 1). Section 27:d. asked “In the last 7 years, have you had any judgments against you that have not been paid?"; to which she answered "No." In the SOR, the Government alleges that Applicant deliberately failed to list that he had an unpaid judgment filed against her within the last seven years, as set forth in subparagraph 1.c., above.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant responded "No" to Section 28:a., which asks, “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?” She also failed to list any debts. The SOR alleges that Applicant should have answered yes and included the debts listed as 1.a., 1.b., 1.d. through 1.g., as alleged in the SOR.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant responded "No" to Section 28:b., which asks, “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $625. Applicant testified she was not aware of the origin of this debt, but it has not been paid. $625	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Disputed with Creditor Claimed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
1.b	This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $29,630. Applicant testified that this debt for a vehicle, which Applicant still possessed at the time of the hearing, had not yet been paid. $29,630	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
1.c	This overdue debt to Creditor 3 for a judgement is cited in the SOR in the amount of $822. During the hearing, Department Counsel stated that based upon an indication, as reported in Exhibit 2, that the Judgement had been satisfied, the Government would stipulate that this debt had been resolved. $822	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $50. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt. $50	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.e	This second overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $50 for a medical bill. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt. $50	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,027. Applicant testified that she has not paid this debt, but she is disputing it since she believes it may have been based on identity theft, which Applicant contends she suffered. $1,027	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Disputed with Creditor Claimed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
1.g	This overdue debt to Creditor 6 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,452. Applicant testified that she only owed the co-payment requirement of $50 for this debt for a medical bill, which she has paid. $2,452	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.h	This overdue debt to Creditor 7 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $203. Applicant testified that this debt for a medical bill, should also have been paid by her insurance carrier at the time. $203	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.i	This second overdue debt to Creditor 7 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,460. Applicant testified that this debt for a medical bill from the same health care provider as 1.h., above, should also have been paid by her insurance carrier. $2,460	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $625. Applicant testified she was not aware of the origin of this debt, but it has not been paid.

$625

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

Claimed

Debt Disputed with Creditor

Claimed

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

1.b

This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $29,630. Applicant testified that this debt for a vehicle, which Applicant still possessed at the time of the hearing, had not yet been paid.

$29,630

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

Claimed

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

1.c

This overdue debt to Creditor 3 for a judgement is cited in the SOR in the amount of $822. During the hearing, Department Counsel stated that based upon an indication, as reported in Exhibit 2, that the Judgement had been satisfied, the Government would stipulate that this debt had been resolved.

$822

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.d

This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $50. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt.

$50

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.e

This second overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $50 for a medical bill. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt.

$50

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.f

This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,027. Applicant testified that she has not paid this debt, but she is disputing it since she believes it may have been based on identity theft, which Applicant contends she suffered.

$1,027

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

Claimed

Debt Disputed with Creditor

Claimed

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

1.g

This overdue debt to Creditor 6 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,452. Applicant testified that she only owed the co-payment requirement of $50 for this debt for a medical bill, which she has paid.

$2,452

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.h

This overdue debt to Creditor 7 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $203. Applicant testified that this debt for a medical bill, should also have been paid by her insurance carrier at the time.

$203

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

1.i

This second overdue debt to Creditor 7 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,460. Applicant testified that this debt for a medical bill from the same health care provider as 1.h., above, should also have been paid by her insurance carrier.

$2,460

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

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