Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old defense contractor and former Navy service member, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent debts and falsification of information on his security clearance application. While he successfully mitigated the financial concerns by demonstrating efforts to resolve his debts, he failed to mitigate the personal conduct concerns related to dishonesty in his application. Consequently, his request for a security clearance was denied.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire (2.a). a home mortgage account past due 120 days in the amount of about $4,879 (1.a). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $11,919 (1.b). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $1,685 (1.c). a utility company debt in the amount of $150 (1.d). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $7,728 (1.e). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $4,012 (1.f). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $3,145 (1.g). consumer credit accounts in the amounts of $1,147 (1.h). a telecommunications debt in the amount of $318 (1.i).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant provided false information regarding his delinquent debts on his security clearance application; The judge found the applicant's explanation for the omissions not credible, as he had the opportunity to review and certify the accuracy of his application; The applicant's personal conduct raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant provided false information regarding his delinquent debts on his security clearance application.
- The judge found the applicant's explanation for the omissions not credible, as he had the opportunity to review and certify the accuracy of his application.
- The applicant's personal conduct raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control.
- AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control.
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
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 issuedMar 18, 2014
- Answer filedApr 24, 2014
- Hearing heldJun 4, 2014
- Decision dateJul 28, 2014
Cite For
- Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Credibility Assessments in Security Clearance Applications