ISCR Case 14-02529.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02529.h1

deniedNov 4, 2014· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant unresolved debts and a false statement made on his security clearance application (SF 86) regarding his financial status.

Specifically, the applicant falsely answered "no" to a question on January 30, 2013, asking if he was over 120 days delinquent on any debt, despite certifying the response as true. He later claimed this was an accidental error, stating he knew of some debts but not the full extent. Additionally, the applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for 2011, with no documentary evidence provided for the federal return.

The applicant admitted to multiple unresolved debts totaling approximately $818, including two veterinary accounts from 2009 and 2011, three medical accounts from 2008 or 2012, an insurance account from 2012, and a cable account from 2012. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible financial management, did not seek financial counseling, and showed no efforts to repay his debts, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple unresolved debts totaling approximately $818, including medical and veterinary bills.
The applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for 2011, which raised security concerns.
The applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate efforts to repay his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F.19(g)raisedFailure to File Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns as Required
E.2.a.raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

F.20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile the applicant cited personal circumstances, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible actions taken to mitigate the financial issues.
F.20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's financial difficulties were ongoing and recent, undermining this mitigating condition.
F.20(c)rejectedEvidence of Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate efforts to resolve his debts.
F.20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not initiate any repayment plans or demonstrate efforts to address his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 15, 2014
Answer filedJul 25, 2014
Hearing heldSep 17, 2014
Decision dateNov 4, 2014

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
False Statements on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Financial Management as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial.

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	On January 30, 2013, when Applicant completed his SF 86, he responded to a particular question pertaining to his financial record. The question in Section 26 – Financial Record asked if he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “no” to the question. He certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the response to that question was, in fact, false. Applicant subsequently denied intending to falsify his response, and explained that he knew he had some debts, but not as many as he eventually found out about, and accidently clicked “no” when he should have said “yes. He claimed that he simply made a mistake.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	As noted above, Applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for 2011. There is uncorroborated oral evidence that he eventually may have filed his state income tax return, but no documentary evidence to support his contentions pertaining to the federal income tax return for 2011 was submitted.	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

On January 30, 2013, when Applicant completed his SF 86, he responded to a particular question pertaining to his financial record. The question in Section 26 – Financial Record asked if he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “no” to the question. He certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the response to that question was, in fact, false. Applicant subsequently denied intending to falsify his response, and explained that he knew he had some debts, but not as many as he eventually found out about, and accidently clicked “no” when he should have said “yes. He claimed that he simply made a mistake.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

2.b

As noted above, Applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for 2011. There is uncorroborated oral evidence that he eventually may have filed his state income tax return, but no documentary evidence to support his contentions pertaining to the federal income tax return for 2011 was submitted.

Against Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	There are two veterinary accounts with balances of $251 and $59 that were placed for collection in 2009 and 2011, respectively. $310	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	There are three medical accounts with unidentified medical service providers with balances of $110, $96, and $90 that were placed for collection in 2008 or 2012. $296	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	There is an insurance account with a balance of $107 that was placed for collection in 2012. $107	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	There is a cable account with a balance of $105 that was placed for collection in 2012. $105	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e–1.h	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

There are two veterinary accounts with balances of $251 and $59 that were placed for collection in 2009 and 2011, respectively.

$310

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

There are three medical accounts with unidentified medical service providers with balances of $110, $96, and $90 that were placed for collection in 2008 or 2012.

$296

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

There is an insurance account with a balance of $107 that was placed for collection in 2012.

$107

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

There is a cable account with a balance of $105 that was placed for collection in 2012.

$105

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e–1.h

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

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