Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 50-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and production specialist, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial debts and deliberate falsifications in her e-QIP. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were ongoing and reflected poor judgment, while her failure to disclose debts raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant completed and certified an e-QIP on March 22, 2010. Section 26g on the e-QIP asks: '[In the last 7 years], [h]ave you had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency?' Applicant responded 'No' to Section 26g. She did not reveal that the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.b., 1.d., 1.e., and 1.f. had been turned over to collection agencies by her initial creditors. Applicant's failure to reveal this information is alleged as a deliberate falsification in SOR ¶ 2.a (2.a). Applicant provided credible documentation to establish that she had satisfied the $66 delinquent debt to a communication company alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a (1.a). Applicant acknowledged a $3,574 debt to a creditor for a delinquency owed on an apartment she and her husband had rented. The debt appears in collection status on her May 1, 2012, credit report (1.b). One of Applicant’s sons purchased a 2001-2002 Jaguar automobile. Applicant co-signed the purchase and payment agreement with her son. The son then lost his job and was unable to pay the debt. Applicant, as co-signer, is responsible for two debts associated with the son’s failure to satisfy the automobile debt. These debts are alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.c. ($12,680) and 1.g. ($381). The debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.c. was in charged-off status (1.c). Applicant lent one of her sons $5,000 so that he could try to obtain custody of his child who was born out of wedlock. The son did not repay Applicant. Applicant apparently borrowed approximately $15,000 to lend to another son so that he could start a business. The business was not established, and the son did not return the money to his parents (1.d). In her interview with an authorized investigator, Applicant was unsure of the nature of a $452 debt, shown on her April 2010 credit report as in collection status. She stated that she would investigate the debt and, if it was valid, pay it. In response to DOHA financial interrogatories, she stated that she was 'working with' one of her sons to persuade him to assume his responsibility in paying the debt (1.e). Applicant provided documentation corroborating payment of $85.23 to the same communication company, and she asserted that this payment satisfied the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.f (1.f). Applicant, as co-signer, is responsible for two debts associated with the son’s failure to satisfy the automobile debt. These debts are alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.c. ($12,680) and 1.g. ($381). In her answer to the SOR, Applicant provided credible evidence that the $381 debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.g. had been satisfied (1.g). Applicant reported that she was $15,000 behind in her mortgage payments on the State A house. The property went into foreclosure in 2011. This debt is alleged at SOR ¶ 1.h (1.h).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 16(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies, including debts turned over to collection agencies; The applicant's responses on her e-QIP regarding financial delinquencies were found to be deliberately false, indicating a lack of candor.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies, including debts turned over to collection agencies.
• The applicant's responses on her e-QIP regarding financial delinquencies were found to be deliberately false, indicating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedNov 17, 2011
• Answer filedFeb 15, 2012Applicant requested decision on the record.
• Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the record.
• Decision dateJun 21, 2012

Cite For

• Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
• Deliberate Falsification of Information on E-qip Under Guideline E
• Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility