Summary
A 31-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations of 13 delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000, which included a past-due auto loan, a defaulted student loan, credit card accounts, and various cable, telecommunications, and other miscellaneous debts.
A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's intentional falsification of his SF 86, where he failed to disclose these delinquent financial obligations. The judge found that the applicant admitted to owing the debts but provided no evidence of making payments or taking steps to resolve them.
Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant did not mitigate the concerns raised by his financial irresponsibility and the intentional misrepresentation on his security clearance application. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling about $24,000, which he admitted owing.
- He intentionally provided false information on his SF 86 by failing to disclose his delinquent debts.
- There was no evidence that the applicant made any payments towards the debts or took steps to resolve them.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant's separation and divorce were beyond his control.
- F.20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- F.20(c)rejectedReceived Counseling for the Problem And/or Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved
- F.20(d)rejectedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or 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 issuedFeb 7, 2015
- Answer filedJun 1, 2015Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
- Decision dateOct 30, 2015
Cite For
- Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Financial Irresponsibility and Its Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
- The Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues for Mitigation Under Guideline F