ISCR Case 14-01703.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01703.h1

deniedJul 1, 2014· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old male applicant with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,256, which he failed to disclose on his security clearance application (SCA). He admitted to answering "no" on the SCA regarding delinquencies over 120 days, despite knowing he had financial issues. He later stated he did not accurately review his financial status at the time of the application.

Specific allegations included a $793 judgment and a failure to appear in court for a returned check, though that matter was eventually resolved, and the case dismissed six years prior with no similar conduct since. The applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts but did not provide sufficient evidence of resolving them.

The judge found that the applicant's failure to disclose known financial issues demonstrated a lack of candor, and his unresolved financial problems raised serious questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts and failed to provide evidence of resolving them.
He did not disclose his financial issues on his security clearance application despite being aware of them, indicating a lack of candor.
The applicant's financial problems remained unresolved, raising serious questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

F.2.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant sought assistance from a credit agency after receiving the SOR.
F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant experienced periods of unemployment.
E.2.bappliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so InfrequentThe applicant's failure to appear in court for a minor check issue occurred six years prior.

Key Rule Quoted

“The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
— Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 11, 2014
Answer filedSep 15, 2014Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
Decision dateJan 12, 2015

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Trustworthiness Determinations

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 answered “no” to the SCA question that asked if he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any financial account. During his background interview he indicated to the investigator that he did not disclose he had any financial issues in his case papers, but he knew he did. He was unable to recall all of his delinquencies, so he did not list any of them, but knew he had them. In response to the FORM, Applicant stated he did not disclose his delinquent debts on his SCA because he did not take the time to accurately review his financial status at that time.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant failed to appear in court as was ordered to resolve a returned check. He eventually went to court and paid the amount owed, and the case was dismissed. The offense was minor, and it has been six years since this conduct occurred. There is no evidence that similar conduct has occurred.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant answered “no” to the SCA question that asked if he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any financial account. During his background interview he indicated to the investigator that he did not disclose he had any financial issues in his case papers, but he knew he did. He was unable to recall all of his delinquencies, so he did not list any of them, but knew he had them. In response to the FORM, Applicant stated he did not disclose his delinquent debts on his SCA because he did not take the time to accurately review his financial status at that time.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

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

—

2.b

Applicant failed to appear in court as was ordered to resolve a returned check. He eventually went to court and paid the amount owed, and the case was dismissed. The offense was minor, and it has been six years since this conduct occurred. There is no evidence that similar conduct has occurred.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.i	9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.j	SOR ¶ 1.j is a judgment for $793. $793	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k–1.p	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a–1.i

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

Against Applicant

—

1.j

SOR ¶ 1.j is a judgment for $793.

$793

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

—

1.k–1.p

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

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