Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 50-year-old field service engineer with a history of criminal conduct, financial issues, and inaccuracies in his security clearance application, successfully mitigated concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J. The applicant and his wife demonstrated significant personal growth and resolution of marital issues through counseling and a renewed commitment to their marriage, which contributed to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant provided incorrect answers to numerous questions in the security clearance application (2.a). Applicant failed to disclose a tax lien that had been satisfied in May 2004 (2.b). Applicant failed to disclose he had a vehicle repossessed because the vehicle was voluntarily returned during the course of the 2003 bankruptcy and he did not consider it to have been repossessed (2.c). Applicant disclosed the judgment entered against him that was discharged in the bankruptcy, but he answered five other questions pertaining to his finances incorrectly, because, as his wife’s testimony substantiated, he was unaware of the various delinquencies at the time he submitted the security clearance application (2.d). Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in August 2003. The petition was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February 2004, and Applicant obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in May 2004 (1.a). The total amount owed on the unsecured nonpriority claims listed in the bankruptcy schedules was $15,576 (1.b). Included in that amount was $2,743 owed to the home remodeler Applicant mentioned in his August 2009 statement (1.c). Applicant has satisfied many of his delinquent creditors (1.d). Applicant has contacted others to determine the legitimacy and his responsibility for the debt (1.e). Considering his wife’s testimony that much, if not all, the delinquent debt was acquired while she and Applicant were separated, either because of deployments or marital discord, it is understandable why Applicant would be unaware of the legitimacy of some debts and need to investigate them before making payments (1.f). Applicant and his wife were just recently able to acquire a substantial mortgage to purchase a new home (1.g). They have a reasonable amount of savings that is sufficient to pay their remaining delinquent creditors when and if Applicant is able to verify his responsibility for those debts (1.h). Applicant testified he paid the two small bills listed in subparagraphs 1.i and 1.s, owed in the amounts of $15 and $83 respectively, although he did not submit any verification in support of that testimony (1.i). He testified he contacted the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.r, owed in the amount of $485, a day or two before the hearing to determine the origin of the debt, and he has determined he is responsible for this debt and will satisfy the debt (1.j). Applicant credibly testified the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.l, owed $785, is his current utility provider, that he has never been notified of a lack of payment, and that he contacted the creditor which was unable to find he was delinquent on his account (1.k). Applicant testified he does not recognize the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.o, but that he has contacted the creditor and they do not have record on him (1.l). He testified he does not recognize the creditors listed in subparagraphs 1.p and 1.t, but will continue to investigate these accounts and pay them if they are his responsibility, or seek to have them removed from his credit report if they do not belong to him (1.m). Applicant credibly testified he contacted both the creditor and a credit reporting agency in an effort to determine if the debt listed in subparagraph 1.f, owed in the amount of $535, belongs to him (1.n). Applicant did not provide any testimony concerning the account listed in subparagraph 1.e, owed in the amount of $101 (1.o). This account originated with the same cellular telephone provider listed in subparagraph 1.d, although under a different account number, that Applicant satisfied in the amount of $583 (1.p). Applicant and his wife testified the delinquent debts listed in his credit reports were due to the various separations they went through (1.q). She also testified that she received notices and telephone calls from collection agencies, but did not inform her husband about the calls and notices and did not disclose to her husband that they were delinquent on the debts (1.r). Applicant and his wife purchased a new home in April 2011 (1.s). On May 2, 2011, they had $4,668.48 in checking accounts, and $11,626.52 in a money market savings account (1.t). Applicant was charged with battery in December 1995; assault and violation of an order of protection in August 2004; assault and violation of an order of protection in July 2006; and two counts of assault and violation of an order of protection in January 2009 (1.a). Applicant was placed on six months probation after he pled guilty to the 1995 charge (1.b). The 2004 and 2009 charges were placed on the STET docket for one year (1.c). Applicant was found not guilty of the 2006 charges (1.d).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 31(a), DC 19(a), DC 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions MC 32(a), MC 32(d), MC 20(a), MC 20(b), MC 20(c), MC 20(d), MC 20(e), MC 15(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant and his wife sought counseling and resolved their marital issues, demonstrating rehabilitation; The applicant provided credible evidence of efforts to address and pay off delinquent debts; The applicant's current financial situation showed stability, including a new home purchase and savings.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant and his wife sought counseling and resolved their marital issues, demonstrating rehabilitation.
• The applicant provided credible evidence of efforts to address and pay off delinquent debts.
• The applicant's current financial situation showed stability, including a new home purchase and savings.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedDec 14, 2010
• Answer filedMar 9, 2011
• Hearing heldMay 5, 2011Hearing conducted as scheduled.
• Decision dateJul 5, 2011

Cite For

• Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Due to Personal Circumstances
• Successful Rehabilitation in Financial Matters
• Credibility of Applicant's Explanations for Inaccuracies in Security Clearance Application