Summary
The applicant, a 54-year-old security guard and military veteran, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of delinquent debts exceeding $25,000 and intentional falsification of his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant intentionally falsified his responses to questions on his SCA regarding his finances and employment history (2.a). Applicant admitted he intentionally falsified his SCA when he failed to disclose being fired from both jobs in 2009 (2.b). three minor debts for $38, $148, and $91 that were all due to one creditor (1.b).
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 has a history of not paying financial obligations, accumulating over $25,000 in delinquent debt; He intentionally falsified his security clearance application by omitting negative financial history and job terminations; The applicant did not provide evidence of resolving his debts or seeking financial counseling.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has a history of not paying financial obligations, accumulating over $25,000 in delinquent debt.
- He intentionally falsified his security clearance application by omitting negative financial history and job terminations.
- The applicant did not provide evidence of resolving his debts or seeking financial counseling.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
Key Rule Quoted
“Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 20, 2012
- Answer filedJan 27, 2013Applicant waived his right to a hearing.
- Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
- Decision dateJun 26, 2013
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
- Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Arise.