ISCR Case 09-07551.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07551.h1

grantedNov 26, 2010· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old computer system administrator was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to approximately $35,710 in debts, including a $17,061 automobile repossession from 2006, a $10,467 judgment from 2004, and multiple medical collection accounts. Other issues included a $71 pet store account paid in 2010, a $98 medical account paid in 2010, and a $1,349 medical account disputed and deleted from her credit report in 2009. Additionally, a $475 judgment from 2006 was satisfied by wage garnishment.

The applicant provided explanations for her financial difficulties, attributing the car repossession to job loss and stating she was making payments on several medical accounts. She also testified to not recognizing a $25 medical account. The judge found that the applicant's omissions on her security clearance questionnaire were not intentional, but rather due to a lack of knowledge.

Ultimately, the security clearance was granted because the applicant demonstrated efforts to resolve her debts, was current on recent bills, and provided credible explanations for past conduct. Her favorable job performance and character references further supported the decision, indicating an improved financial situation and a lack of intent to deceive.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided evidence of resolving several debts and was up-to-date on recent bills.
The judge found the applicant's omissions on the security clearance questionnaire were not intentional and were based on a lack of knowledge.
The applicant's favorable job performance and character references supported her case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant has not attended financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has a Good Track Record of Financial Responsibility Since the Incident
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 17, 2010
Answer filedJun 12, 2010
Hearing heldOct 14, 2010Hearing rescheduled due to applicant's failure to appear and issues with receiving exhibits.
Decision dateNov 26, 2010

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Issues
Consideration of Unintentional Omissions in Security Clearance Applications
The Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility and Improvement in Circumstances

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–2.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.f

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$71 pet store account placed for collection: Paid on October 22, 2010. $71	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	$25 medical account, creditor unknown: Applicant testified that she does not know what this account is. No specific creditor was alleged. $25	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	$17,061 automobile repossession, repossessed in 2006: Applicant testified that she was unable to make her car payments because she lost her job. $17,061	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	$110 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts. $110	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	$940 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts. $940	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	$279 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts. $279	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	$178 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts. $178	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	$98 medical collection account: The account was paid on October 22, 2010. $98	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	$1,349 medical collection account: In September 2009, Applicant formally disputed this account with one of the credit reporting agencies. The account was deleted from her credit report on September 30, 2009. The debt is resolved. $1,349	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.k	$10,467 judgment entered against Applicant on behalf of an apartment complex on March 24, 2004. $10,467	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.l	Five lawsuits against Applicant on behalf of the same apartment complex for unpaid rent.	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.m	Five lawsuits against Applicant on behalf of an apartment complex for unpaid rent.	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.n	$475 judgment entered against Applicant in April 2006 which was satisfied by wage garnishment. $475	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.o	Two creditors attempted to obtain judgments against Applicant for an unknown amount. Both suits were withdrawn because they were unable to serve Applicant.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

$71 pet store account placed for collection: Paid on October 22, 2010.

$71

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.b

$25 medical account, creditor unknown: Applicant testified that she does not know what this account is. No specific creditor was alleged.

$25

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

$17,061 automobile repossession, repossessed in 2006: Applicant testified that she was unable to make her car payments because she lost her job.

$17,061

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

1.d

$110 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts.

$110

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.f

$940 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts.

$940

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.g

$279 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts.

$279

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.h

$178 medical collection account: Applicant states that the medical accounts are being collected by the same collection agency. She is making payments towards all of the accounts.

$178

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.i

$98 medical collection account: The account was paid on October 22, 2010.

$98

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

1.j

$1,349 medical collection account: In September 2009, Applicant formally disputed this account with one of the credit reporting agencies. The account was deleted from her credit report on September 30, 2009. The debt is resolved.

$1,349

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

1.k

$10,467 judgment entered against Applicant on behalf of an apartment complex on March 24, 2004.

$10,467

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.l

Five lawsuits against Applicant on behalf of the same apartment complex for unpaid rent.

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.m

Five lawsuits against Applicant on behalf of an apartment complex for unpaid rent.

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.n

$475 judgment entered against Applicant in April 2006 which was satisfied by wage garnishment.

$475

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.o

Two creditors attempted to obtain judgments against Applicant for an unknown amount. Both suits were withdrawn because they were unable to serve Applicant.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

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