ISCR Case 09-02496.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02496.h1

deniedJul 1, 2009· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old former Marine Corps member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations of significant financial issues, including $40,339 in unpaid debts owed to 28 creditors, and admitted to being over 180 days delinquent on debts in the last seven years, as well as currently over 90 days delinquent. While the applicant resolved several smaller debts, including a $210 credit card debt, a $225 utility account, and a $315 cable bill, and disputed others, the substantial outstanding balance remained a concern.

Further issues arose from the applicant's personal conduct, specifically the intentional falsification of information on his security clearance application (e-QIP) regarding financial delinquencies. This lack of candor raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Additionally, the applicant's criminal conduct, which included theft by check, contributed to the denial. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not sufficiently mitigated, and that the intentional falsification of information, combined with the criminal conduct, warranted the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had significant unpaid debts totaling $40,339, indicating financial irresponsibility.
The applicant intentionally falsified answers on his e-QIP regarding financial delinquencies, demonstrating a lack of candor.
The applicant's criminal conduct, including theft by check, raised further concerns about his judgment and reliability.

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
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAdmission of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial issues began after his military discharge and were exacerbated by insufficient income.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant provided evidence of payments on some debts, but not all.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant disputed several debts, leading to some being removed from credit reports.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2009
Answer filedJan 12, 2010Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 20, 2010

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility and Its Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility
Intentional Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Applications
Criminal Conduct and Its Implications for Trustworthiness 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	In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

2.b

Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.a (credit card debt of $210) $210	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Credited Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant has $40,339 in unpaid debts owed to 28 creditors.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.d (medical $60) $60	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.e	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.e (medical $91) $91	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.f	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.g (telephone bill $1,605) $1,605	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.h (bank debt $497, paid $50) $497	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.i (check $77) $77	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.j	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.j (credit account $250) $250	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.k	Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.k (utility account $225) $225	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Credited Debt Paid in Full
1.l	Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.l (all-terrain vehicle $5,012) $5,012	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.m	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.n	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.n (credit union $69) $69	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.o	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.o (bank account $2,234) $2,234	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.p	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.p (medical $63) $63	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.q	Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.q (cable $315) $315	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Credited Debt Paid in Full
1.r	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.r (bank credit card $572) $572	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.s	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.t	Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.t (medical $55) $55	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.u	Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.u (all-terrain vehicle $5,082) $5,082	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Credited Debt Paid in Full
1.v–1.x	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—
1.y	Applicant stated that he paid the debt listed in SOR allegation 1.y ($7,872) $7,872	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.z	Applicant stated that he paid the debt listed in SOR allegation 1.z ($7,872) $7,872	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.aa–1.dd	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.a (credit card debt of $210)

$210

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Debt Paid in Full

1.b

Applicant has $40,339 in unpaid debts owed to 28 creditors.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.d

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.d (medical $60)

$60

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.e

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.e (medical $91)

$91

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.f

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.g

Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.g (telephone bill $1,605)

$1,605

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

1.h

Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.h (bank debt $497, paid $50)

$497

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.i

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.i (check $77)

$77

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.j

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.j (credit account $250)

$250

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.k

Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.k (utility account $225)

$225

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Debt Paid in Full

1.l

Applicant disputed the following SOR debts: 1.l (all-terrain vehicle $5,012)

$5,012

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.m

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.n

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.n (credit union $69)

$69

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.o

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.o (bank account $2,234)

$2,234

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.p

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.p (medical $63)

$63

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.q

Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.q (cable $315)

$315

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Debt Paid in Full

1.r

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.r (bank credit card $572)

$572

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.s

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.t

Applicant stated that he paid the debts in SOR allegations 1.t (medical $55)

$55

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.u

Applicant paid and verified payment of these two SOR debts: 1.u (all-terrain vehicle $5,082)

$5,082

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Debt Paid in Full

1.v–1.x

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

1.y

Applicant stated that he paid the debt listed in SOR allegation 1.y ($7,872)

$7,872

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.z

Applicant stated that he paid the debt listed in SOR allegation 1.z ($7,872)

$7,872

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

1.aa–1.dd

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges that Applicant violated federal law when he falsified his answers to Section 28 of the e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government alleges that Applicant violated federal law when he falsified his answers to Section 28 of the e-QIP.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

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