ISCR Case 09-02753.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02753.h1

deniedFeb 24, 2010· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old male applicant with a history of criminal conduct and financial difficulties was denied a security clearance under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and J (Criminal Conduct). Despite positive attributes like military service and a good employment record, recent criminal behavior and unresolved financial issues were central to the denial.

Regarding criminal conduct, the applicant had a juvenile grand theft charge in 1990, which resulted in a community service program. In 1995, a physical domestic dispute led to a two-week barracks restriction. In 2005, after a text message incident, he kicked open his estranged wife's door, leading to charges that were later null prossed after he completed anger management. More recently, in 2007, he was convicted of consensual sexual conduct with a 16-year-old, resulting in a six-month jail sentence with five months suspended. In 2008, he was arrested for possession of approximately one ounce of marijuana, pleading no contest and receiving a suspended 30-day sentence and a $141 fine.

Financially, the applicant had a disputed $58 phone bill that the company had no record of and was working to remove from his credit report. He also owed an approximate $27,000 deficiency after a short sale of his home and disputed a $127 insurance payment. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate concerns from his recent criminal behavior, including the conviction for consensual sexual conduct with a minor and marijuana possession, and his financial difficulties, which indicated poor judgment and a lack of self-control.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns stemming from his criminal conduct and financial problems.
The applicant's recent criminal behavior, including a conviction for consensual sexual conduct with a minor and possession of marijuana, raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's financial difficulties, including a foreclosure and unresolved debts, indicated a lack of self-control and poor judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedMultiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedThere Is Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“"Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness."”
— AG ¶ 30

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 20, 2009
Answer filedSep 10, 2009
Hearing heldFeb 24, 2010
Decision date—

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Recent Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
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	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	SOR subparagraph 2.a is a phone bill for $58. Applicant contacted the phone company’s billing department to dispute the bill. It had no record of the account, and forwarded Applicant’s dispute to the credit reporting department to remove it from his record. $58	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Disputed with Creditor
2.b	Applicant owes a deficiency of approximately $27,000 after the mortgagee short sold the home. $27,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.c	SOR subparagraph 2.c is an allegedly delinquent insurance payment for $127. Applicant disputes this bill contending that he has been using this insurance provider for the past five years, and has never been informed of a delinquency. $127	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Disputed with Creditor

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

SOR subparagraph 2.a is a phone bill for $58. Applicant contacted the phone company’s billing department to dispute the bill. It had no record of the account, and forwarded Applicant’s dispute to the credit reporting department to remove it from his record.

$58

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt

Documented

Debt Disputed with Creditor

2.b

Applicant owes a deficiency of approximately $27,000 after the mortgagee short sold the home.

$27,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.c

SOR subparagraph 2.c is an allegedly delinquent insurance payment for $127. Applicant disputes this bill contending that he has been using this insurance provider for the past five years, and has never been informed of a delinquency.

$127

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt

Documented

Debt Disputed with Creditor

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges that in 1990, when Applicant was 17, he went on a joyride with a friend who had stolen a car. Later, the friend, an adult, was apprehended by the police and accused Applicant of stealing the car. Applicant was then charged in juvenile court with grand theft of a motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty and the court withheld adjudication, placing him in a community service program. Applicant successfully completed the program.	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	The SOR alleges that in May 1995, Applicant and his then wife engaged in a public, heated argument that turned physical, leading to Applicant’s arrest. Applicant was not awarded nonjudicial punishment. Instead, his supervisor, a first sergeant, restricted him to his barracks for two weeks.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleges that in 2005, Applicant and his wife separated. Later that year, Applicant’s wife erroneously sent him a sexually suggestive text message that was intended for another man. Enraged, Applicant drove to his wife’s home to confront her. After a friend of his wife answered the door and refused to allow him to enter, Applicant kicked the door open, then left the home. Later, Applicant was charged with entering property with intent to damage, and destruction of property. Also, the court entered a 15-day protective order. The protective order expired without incident, and the court subsequently null prossed the charges. Also, Applicant voluntarily completed anger management classes, which he successfully completed.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	The SOR alleges that in 2007, Applicant began dating his next door neighbor’s daughter, who was 16 years old at the time. Applicant testified that he thought she was 18 years old. He contends no sexual intercourse occurred, and that the relationship was limited to foreplay and the exchange of sexually suggestive text messages. Later, Applicant was arrested and charged with consensual sexual intercourse with a child, age 15 or older. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail with five months suspended.	Against Applicant	Sexual Offense Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	The SOR alleges that in February 2008, Applicant allowed his adult nephew who was living with him to borrow his car. The next morning, Applicant drove it to work. That afternoon, Applicant’s nephew called him and told him he left something in the trunk. Applicant assumed it was marijuana. He did not dispose of it or notify the police. Instead, Applicant left the marijuana in the trunk with the intention of returning it to his nephew. Later, while driving home from work, a highway patrolman stopped Applicant for driving with tinted windows and smelled marijuana. Applicant then told the officer about the marijuana in the trunk. The officer searched the trunk, discovered approximately one ounce of marijuana, and arrested Applicant, charging him with possession of marijuana. Applicant pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to 30 days (suspended), and fined $141. Also, his driver’s license was restricted for six months.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

The SOR alleges that in 1990, when Applicant was 17, he went on a joyride with a friend who had stolen a car. Later, the friend, an adult, was apprehended by the police and accused Applicant of stealing the car. Applicant was then charged in juvenile court with grand theft of a motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty and the court withheld adjudication, placing him in a community service program. Applicant successfully completed the program.

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.b

The SOR alleges that in May 1995, Applicant and his then wife engaged in a public, heated argument that turned physical, leading to Applicant’s arrest. Applicant was not awarded nonjudicial punishment. Instead, his supervisor, a first sergeant, restricted him to his barracks for two weeks.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.c

The SOR alleges that in 2005, Applicant and his wife separated. Later that year, Applicant’s wife erroneously sent him a sexually suggestive text message that was intended for another man. Enraged, Applicant drove to his wife’s home to confront her. After a friend of his wife answered the door and refused to allow him to enter, Applicant kicked the door open, then left the home. Later, Applicant was charged with entering property with intent to damage, and destruction of property. Also, the court entered a 15-day protective order. The protective order expired without incident, and the court subsequently null prossed the charges. Also, Applicant voluntarily completed anger management classes, which he successfully completed.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.d

The SOR alleges that in 2007, Applicant began dating his next door neighbor’s daughter, who was 16 years old at the time. Applicant testified that he thought she was 18 years old. He contends no sexual intercourse occurred, and that the relationship was limited to foreplay and the exchange of sexually suggestive text messages. Later, Applicant was arrested and charged with consensual sexual intercourse with a child, age 15 or older. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail with five months suspended.

Against Applicant

Sexual Offense Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.e

The SOR alleges that in February 2008, Applicant allowed his adult nephew who was living with him to borrow his car. The next morning, Applicant drove it to work. That afternoon, Applicant’s nephew called him and told him he left something in the trunk. Applicant assumed it was marijuana. He did not dispose of it or notify the police. Instead, Applicant left the marijuana in the trunk with the intention of returning it to his nephew. Later, while driving home from work, a highway patrolman stopped Applicant for driving with tinted windows and smelled marijuana. Applicant then told the officer about the marijuana in the trunk. The officer searched the trunk, discovered approximately one ounce of marijuana, and arrested Applicant, charging him with possession of marijuana. Applicant pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to 30 days (suspended), and fined $141. Also, his driver’s license was restricted for six months.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

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