ISCR Case 15-00022.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00022.h1

deniedApr 25, 2016· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old high school graduate was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant failed to disclose financial difficulties on her security clearance application, answering "no" to all financial inquiry questions despite having numerous unresolved delinquent debts. This lack of candor raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

The applicant's financial issues were partly attributed to her husband's medical condition and unemployment. However, she provided insufficient evidence of debt resolution for several accounts. For example, she claimed to have paid a $70 debt but provided no proof, and for an $815 gas station credit card debt, she stated she had no knowledge of the account and had not attempted to resolve it. While she entered a settlement agreement for a $1,163 debt, the terms required a payment by March 30, 2016, and the outcome of that payment was not confirmed.

Other debts included a $40,314 vehicle loan that resulted in a voluntary repossession, a $681 cell phone account for which she provided a settlement offer, and several medical debts she claimed to have paid but did not provide receipts. Despite some efforts to address certain debts, many remained unpaid and unresolved, indicating ongoing financial irresponsibility. The combination of deliberate omissions on her application and insufficient evidence of debt resolution led to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of actions taken to resolve her delinquent debts.
Applicant deliberately omitted financial difficulties on her security clearance application, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
Despite some debts being resolved, many remain unpaid and unresolved, indicating ongoing financial irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.2.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
F.2.dappliedThe 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 issuedJun 22, 2015
Answer filedJul 15, 2015
Hearing heldMar 2, 2016
Decision dateApr 25, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Ongoing Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations and Security Clearance Eligibility

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 failed to disclose on her SCA that she had financial difficulties when she answered 'no' to all of the financial inquiry questions.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to disclose on her SCA that she had financial difficulties when she answered 'no' to all of the financial inquiry questions.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant indicated during her OPM interview that she had never heard of the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.a ($70). She testified that she disputed the account because she had paid it. She stated she would provide proof of payment. Her post-hearing documents do not reflect payment of this debt. $70	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant also testified she paid the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b ($112). Her post-hearing document shows there is a zero balance owed on the account. $112	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	Applicant testified that she believed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c ($1,163) was related to a withdrawal from her account for a child support payment owed by her husband, but is unsure. At the time of hearing, she had not contacted the creditor to resolve the issue or satisfy the debt. After the hearing, she provided a settlement agreement to resolve the debt. She agreed to pay $697 by March 30, 2016, or the terms of the agreement would be voided. $1,163	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Settlement
1.d	Regarding the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d ($815) owed for a gas station credit card, Applicant stated she did not know anything about this account and has not made inquiries to dispute or resolve it. $815	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.e ($40,314) was for a vehicle that Applicant and her spouse purchased in 2007. She testified she made payments on the vehicle until June 2009. The monthly payment was $983. Applicant testified that the car was voluntarily repossessed in June or July 2009 and auctioned off. When questioned by the OPM investigator, she stated she thought the amount she owed on the loan was satisfied by the auction. $40,314	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f ($681) was for a cell phone account. Applicant testified that she had no idea how old the account was and that she had paid it about a year ago. She stated she would provide the receipt of payment in her post-hearing documents. Applicant provided a letter from the collection agency holding the debt dated March 10, 2016, agreeing to settle the debt for $272 with her initial payment of $100 due on March 30, 2016. $681	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Settlement
1.g	At her hearing, Applicant testified she had no knowledge of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g ($617). She stated she contacted the creditor who was unfamiliar with the debt. She did not dispute the debt with the credit bureau. $617	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant believed that the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($272) became delinquent about a year ago. She was going to provide supporting documents to show it was resolved, but she did not. $272	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i–1.k	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—
1.l	Applicant testified that she paid these medical debts and would provide receipts. She did not. She indicated in her post-hearing response that she attempted to contact the creditors for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j but “got run around” so she disputes them. $170	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant indicated during her OPM interview that she had never heard of the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.a ($70). She testified that she disputed the account because she had paid it. She stated she would provide proof of payment. Her post-hearing documents do not reflect payment of this debt.

$70

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Applicant also testified she paid the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b ($112). Her post-hearing document shows there is a zero balance owed on the account.

$112

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.c

Applicant testified that she believed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c ($1,163) was related to a withdrawal from her account for a child support payment owed by her husband, but is unsure. At the time of hearing, she had not contacted the creditor to resolve the issue or satisfy the debt. After the hearing, she provided a settlement agreement to resolve the debt. She agreed to pay $697 by March 30, 2016, or the terms of the agreement would be voided.

$1,163

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Claimed

Debt Settlement

1.d

Regarding the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d ($815) owed for a gas station credit card, Applicant stated she did not know anything about this account and has not made inquiries to dispute or resolve it.

$815

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.e ($40,314) was for a vehicle that Applicant and her spouse purchased in 2007. She testified she made payments on the vehicle until June 2009. The monthly payment was $983. Applicant testified that the car was voluntarily repossessed in June or July 2009 and auctioned off. When questioned by the OPM investigator, she stated she thought the amount she owed on the loan was satisfied by the auction.

$40,314

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f ($681) was for a cell phone account. Applicant testified that she had no idea how old the account was and that she had paid it about a year ago. She stated she would provide the receipt of payment in her post-hearing documents. Applicant provided a letter from the collection agency holding the debt dated March 10, 2016, agreeing to settle the debt for $272 with her initial payment of $100 due on March 30, 2016.

$681

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Claimed

Debt Settlement

1.g

At her hearing, Applicant testified she had no knowledge of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g ($617). She stated she contacted the creditor who was unfamiliar with the debt. She did not dispute the debt with the credit bureau.

$617

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

Applicant believed that the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($272) became delinquent about a year ago. She was going to provide supporting documents to show it was resolved, but she did not.

$272

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i–1.k

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

1.l

Applicant testified that she paid these medical debts and would provide receipts. She did not. She indicated in her post-hearing response that she attempted to contact the creditors for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j but “got run around” so she disputes them.

$170

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

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