ISCR Case 10-02270.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02270.h1

deniedJul 1, 2010· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old security officer for a Department of Defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $19,674 and intentional omissions in her October 2009 e-QIP application.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose several unpaid debts, including an outstanding judgment related to a leased car and seven medical bills totaling $830. Additionally, she co-signed a car loan with her former husband, who subsequently defaulted. While the applicant challenged the validity of one medical bill, and her financial difficulties were partly attributed to a natural disaster and her former husband's failure to pay child support, the judge found insufficient effort to resolve the debts.

The intentional omission of material financial information from her e-QIP was a key factor, undermining her trustworthiness. Despite some mitigating conditions being applied, the applicant's failure to resolve her financial delinquencies and her lack of candor in the application process ultimately led to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to resolve significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $19,674.
The applicant intentionally omitted material information regarding unpaid debts from her e-QIP, undermining her trustworthiness.
The applicant's financial difficulties were exacerbated by her former husband's failure to pay court-ordered child support, but she did not demonstrate sufficient effort to address her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.2.craisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Mitigating

F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.2.eappliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2010
Answer filedOct 4, 2010followed by additional responses on November 8, 2010, and December 27, 2010
Hearing heldApr 7, 2011
Decision dateApr 22, 2011record closed on this date

Cite For

Intentional Omission of Material Facts in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Difficulties Stemming From Uncontrollable Circumstances Under Guideline F
The Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 omitted material facts from her October 2009 e-QIP, when she failed to acknowledge her unpaid debts, including an unpaid judgment.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b–2.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant omitted material facts from her October 2009 e-QIP, when she failed to acknowledge her unpaid debts, including an unpaid judgment.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

2.b–2.d

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant and her husband leased a car, which they eventually returned to the leasing company. The court awarded the company a judgment against her. $1,128	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Seven debts identified in the SOR relate to unpaid medical bills and total $830. $830	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.e	Applicant challenged the validity of the medical bill in SOR ¶ 1.e as shown on her credit reports.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f–1.g	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.h	Applicant's husband purchased a car, and she co-signed the loan during their marriage. Her husband later defaulted on the loan. $17,304	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i–1.m	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant and her husband leased a car, which they eventually returned to the leasing company. The court awarded the company a judgment against her.

$1,128

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Seven debts identified in the SOR relate to unpaid medical bills and total $830.

$830

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c–1.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

1.e

Applicant challenged the validity of the medical bill in SOR ¶ 1.e as shown on her credit reports.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.f–1.g

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

1.h

Applicant's husband purchased a car, and she co-signed the loan during their marriage. Her husband later defaulted on the loan.

$17,304

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i–1.m

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

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