ISCR Case 14-02278.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02278.h1

deniedNov 21, 2015· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old electrician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related offenses, undisclosed delinquent debts, and multiple financial issues, which collectively raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant faced allegations of failing to disclose several delinquent debts on his February 2014 and August 2013 Security Clearance Applications (SCAs). These debts included two electronics store charge accounts, each for $4,001, a mortgage loan with $14,667 past due, an online retail store account for $204, a telecommunications bill for $137, and a discount retail store debt for $775. Additionally, he failed to disclose a February 2014 DUI arrest and a March 1991 DWI arrest on both SCAs, and a January 1991 arrest for misdemeanor destruction of private property.

The judge found that the applicant had multiple alcohol-related offenses, including a recent DUI conviction, and failed to disclose significant delinquent debts on his SCAs. His admission to falsifying information on these applications further contributed to the denial. While some mitigating conditions were considered, they were insufficient to overcome the disqualifying conditions.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple alcohol-related offenses, including a recent DUI conviction.
He failed to disclose significant delinquent debts on his security clearance applications.
The applicant admitted to falsifying information on his SCAs, which raised questions about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work.
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Was so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur.The applicant's most recent DUI conviction was only 21 months ago.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.The applicant did not act responsibly in addressing his financial issues.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem.The applicant has not sought or received financial counseling.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 25, 2014
Answer filedOct 18, 2014
Hearing heldSep 25, 2015
Decision dateNov 21, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts Under Guideline E
Recent Alcohol-related Offenses Under Guideline G
Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E

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
4.a	Failed to disclose the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.a-3.f when he submitted his February 2014 and August 2013 SCAs	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
4.b	Failed to disclose his February 2014 DUI and March 1991 DWI arrests in his February 2014 SCA	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
4.c	Failed to disclose his DUI and DWI arrests in his August 2013 SCA	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
4.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Failed to disclose the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.a-3.f when he submitted his February 2014 and August 2013 SCAs

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

4.b

Failed to disclose his February 2014 DUI and March 1991 DWI arrests in his February 2014 SCA

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

4.c

Failed to disclose his DUI and DWI arrests in his August 2013 SCA

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

4.d

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Delinquent charge account with an electronics store, referred for collection for $4,001, after it became more than 150 days delinquent. $4,001	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Delinquent charge account with an electronics store, referred for collection for $4,001, after it became more than 150 days delinquent. $4,001	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Mortgage loan payments totaling $14,667 that were more than 150 days past due. $14,667	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	Charge account with an online retail store that is more than 120 days past due for $204. $204	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.e	Telecommunications bill for $137, referred for collection in January 2014. $137	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.f	$775 debt to a discount retail store that became past due more than 150 days and was referred for collection in January 2014. $775	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Delinquent charge account with an electronics store, referred for collection for $4,001, after it became more than 150 days delinquent.

$4,001

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b

Delinquent charge account with an electronics store, referred for collection for $4,001, after it became more than 150 days delinquent.

$4,001

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c

Mortgage loan payments totaling $14,667 that were more than 150 days past due.

$14,667

Against Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.d

Charge account with an online retail store that is more than 120 days past due for $204.

$204

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.e

Telecommunications bill for $137, referred for collection in January 2014.

$137

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.f

$775 debt to a discount retail store that became past due more than 150 days and was referred for collection in January 2014.

$775

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested on or about February 2, 2014, and charged with DUI.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	The SOR alleges that he was arrested in March 1991 and charged with DWI.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested on or about February 2, 2014, and charged with DUI.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.b

The SOR alleges that he was arrested in March 1991 and charged with DWI.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in January 1991 and charged with misdemeanor destruction of private property.	For Applicant	Vandalism or Property Damage	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
2.b	The SOR also cross-alleges the DUI and DWI offenses alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested in January 1991 and charged with misdemeanor destruction of private property.

For Applicant

Vandalism or Property Damage

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

2.b

The SOR also cross-alleges the DUI and DWI offenses alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

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