ISCR Case 08-05959.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05959.h1

deniedJun 15, 2009· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F, stemming from approximately $30,770 in delinquent debts. These obligations included student loans, credit card debt, a repossessed car loan, and a state tax lien. The applicant claimed some debts were fraudulent due to identity theft, while others were disputed or attributed to financial hardship.

During an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interview in February 2008, the applicant disputed several accounts, stating she did not believe she held them or that they were fraudulent. She also claimed to have paid one debt but lacked documentation. For other debts, including significant student loans, she stated they were in forbearance. She acknowledged a credit card debt and a state tax lien, agreeing to make payments on the former and having partially paid the latter. However, she disputed owing money after a car repossession.

The judge found that the applicant failed to provide documentation to confirm the status of her debts or to substantiate her claims of identity theft or payment. She also did not take adequate action to resolve or dispute her delinquent debts, despite being aware of them for a significant period. Ultimately, the applicant's testimony was deemed to lack credibility and candor, leading to the denial of her eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide documentation to confirm the status of her debts.
She did not take adequate action to dispute or resolve her delinquent debts, despite being aware of them for a significant period.
The applicant's testimony lacked credibility and candor regarding her financial situation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not act responsibly in addressing her delinquencies.
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)rejectedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant has not received financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant failed to follow through on promises to address her debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide evidence of actions to formally dispute the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect sensitive information.”
— AG ¶ 18

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 27, 2009
Answer filedMar 20, 2009
Hearing heldJun 3, 2009via video-teleconference
Decision dateJun 15, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Credibility Issues in Applicant's Testimony Regarding Financial Disputes
Lack of Action Taken to Resolve Delinquent Debts as a Basis for Denial

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has accumulated approximately $30,770 in delinquent debts. The debts listed in SOR ¶ 1.a ($945) are to the same creditor. In February 2008 Applicant was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator regarding these delinquent debts. She advised the investigator she disputed the accounts because she did not believe she held accounts with the creditor. She indicated she believed these were fraudulent accounts opened in her name and was not going to pay them. $945	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The debts listed in SOR ¶ 1.b ($1,044) are to the same creditor. In February 2008 Applicant was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator regarding these delinquent debts. She advised the investigator she disputed the accounts because she did not believe she held accounts with the creditor. She indicated she believed these were fraudulent accounts opened in her name and was not going to pay them. $1,044	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant stated she believes the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c. ($1,221) is the same as the debt in ¶ 1.k ($614). She failed to provide substantiation for why she believes they are the same. She also stated she believes these debts are fraudulent and she needs to file a police report. $1,221	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.d ($168) Applicant stated she paid but did not retain any documents. She admitted she was delinquent on paying the debt for about a year and she has been disputing the debt. The debt was for phone services. $168	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance. $5,846	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance. $6,023	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance. $5,761	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($474) is a credit card debt that Applicant stopped paying sometime in 2006. She knows she owes the money, but did not have the money to pay it at the time. She acknowledged the debt at her OPM interview in February 2008 and agreed to pay the debt in full. She planned on making payment arrangements and settling the account no later than October 2008. She has not made any payments on the debt, but stated she contacted the creditor in February 2009. $474	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($7,538) is for a repossessed car. In her OPM interview she agreed her vehicle was repossessed, but disputed that she owed any money to the creditor. She acknowledged she got behind in her payments on the loan when she and her husband moved. She received a letter from the finance company advising her she owed the alleged amount. However, she did not believe she owed anything after the vehicle was repossessed because she no longer had the vehicle. $7,538	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.j ($1,131) is a state tax lien. In her OPM interview Applicant believed the lien was for taxes owed on a vehicle purchase. She admitted that she was behind in paying her state income taxes at one point and paid $300 toward the back taxes and believes she owes a remainder of $500. $1,131	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Applicant stated she believes the debt in SOR ¶ 1.k ($614) is the same as the debt in ¶ 1.c ($1,221). She failed to provide substantiation for why she believes they are the same. She also stated she believes these debts are fraudulent and she needs to file a police report. $614	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 has accumulated approximately $30,770 in delinquent debts. The debts listed in SOR ¶ 1.a ($945) are to the same creditor. In February 2008 Applicant was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator regarding these delinquent debts. She advised the investigator she disputed the accounts because she did not believe she held accounts with the creditor. She indicated she believed these were fraudulent accounts opened in her name and was not going to pay them.

$945

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

The debts listed in SOR ¶ 1.b ($1,044) are to the same creditor. In February 2008 Applicant was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator regarding these delinquent debts. She advised the investigator she disputed the accounts because she did not believe she held accounts with the creditor. She indicated she believed these were fraudulent accounts opened in her name and was not going to pay them.

$1,044

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

Applicant stated she believes the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c. ($1,221) is the same as the debt in ¶ 1.k ($614). She failed to provide substantiation for why she believes they are the same. She also stated she believes these debts are fraudulent and she needs to file a police report.

$1,221

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.d ($168) Applicant stated she paid but did not retain any documents. She admitted she was delinquent on paying the debt for about a year and she has been disputing the debt. The debt was for phone services.

$168

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance.

$5,846

Against Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance.

$6,023

Against Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.g

The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($5,846), 1.f ($6,023) and 1.g ($5,761) are student loan debts that are alleged to be in collection status that Applicant stated are now in forbearance.

$5,761

Against Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($474) is a credit card debt that Applicant stopped paying sometime in 2006. She knows she owes the money, but did not have the money to pay it at the time. She acknowledged the debt at her OPM interview in February 2008 and agreed to pay the debt in full. She planned on making payment arrangements and settling the account no later than October 2008. She has not made any payments on the debt, but stated she contacted the creditor in February 2009.

$474

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($7,538) is for a repossessed car. In her OPM interview she agreed her vehicle was repossessed, but disputed that she owed any money to the creditor. She acknowledged she got behind in her payments on the loan when she and her husband moved. She received a letter from the finance company advising her she owed the alleged amount. However, she did not believe she owed anything after the vehicle was repossessed because she no longer had the vehicle.

$7,538

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.j

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.j ($1,131) is a state tax lien. In her OPM interview Applicant believed the lien was for taxes owed on a vehicle purchase. She admitted that she was behind in paying her state income taxes at one point and paid $300 toward the back taxes and believes she owes a remainder of $500.

$1,131

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.k

Applicant stated she believes the debt in SOR ¶ 1.k ($614) is the same as the debt in ¶ 1.c ($1,221). She failed to provide substantiation for why she believes they are the same. She also stated she believes these debts are fraudulent and she needs to file a police report.

$614

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