ISCR Case 00-0637.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 00-0637.h1

deniedDec 26, 2001· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to significant omissions on his July 1999 Personnel Security Questionnaire (SF 86) and misleading responses to subsequent interrogatories. The applicant failed to disclose a November 1993 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition, which discharged nearly $19,000 in debts, despite it being within the required seven-year timeframe. He also omitted the voluntary repossession of his automobile, two judgments (one for over $1,000 from April 1998 and another for over $3,000 from 1994), and several financial delinquencies over 90 days late, including one for over $1,000 since 1995 and a $654 dental bill. Additionally, he did not report a 1994 civil judgment for $207 related to a motor vehicles surcharge.

While the applicant resolved all his financial issues by February 2000, and criminal conduct concerns under Guideline J were resolved in his favor due to a lack of intent to falsify, the judge found that his negligence in completing the SF 86 raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The omissions were deemed deliberate concealment of relevant facts, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.

Despite resolving his financial issues, the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his personal conduct. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to disclose substantial debts and a bankruptcy on his SF 86, demonstrating negligence and lack of due diligence.
The judge found that the applicant's omissions constituted deliberate concealment of relevant facts, raising security concerns under Guideline E.
Despite resolving financial issues, the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
J1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 16, 2001Package not received, resent on July 5, 2001.
Answer filedAug 21, 2001Applicant admitted some allegations and denied others.
Hearing heldOct 15, 2001Hearing conducted with evidence presented.
Decision dateDec 26, 2001

Cite For

Negligence in Completing Security Forms Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns
Resolution of Criminal Conduct Concerns Due to Lack of Intent to Falsify

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
1.a	In response to Question 33 the Applicant failed to reveal a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition in November 1993 where debts of almost $19,000 were discharged in April 1994 even though the date he filed was within the required seven year time frame when he completed the SF 86 in July 1999.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In response to Question 35 he failed to reveal that he had voluntarily surrendered his automobile to be repossessed when he was unable to make regular payments even though according to the terms of the bankruptcy he could have kept the truck.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	In response to Question 37 he failed to reveal two judgments, one for over $1,000 filed in April 1998 (which he satisfied in February 2000) and one for over $3,000 filed against him in 1994 (which he satisfied in February 2000).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	In response to Question 39, he failed to reveal financial delinquencies over 90 days late to three creditors: one for over $1,000 since 1995 which he had forgotten about (which he satisfied in February 2000); one to a dentist for $654 sent for collection in March 1999 (which he satisfied in February 2000) and the two judgments listed above.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	In response to Question 40 he failed to reveal his public record of civil court actions for a 1994 civil judgment for $207 for a state division of motor vehicles surcharge which he had satisfied in September 1995; he never had to go to court on this debt and was unaware that there was a public record of a civil court action.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	When the Applicant replied in November 2000 to DOHA interrogatories (Exhibit 3), he explained that he was confused as he thought that he was being asked again about financial issues he had fully explained to the DSS agent in March 2000.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

In response to Question 33 the Applicant failed to reveal a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition in November 1993 where debts of almost $19,000 were discharged in April 1994 even though the date he filed was within the required seven year time frame when he completed the SF 86 in July 1999.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.b

In response to Question 35 he failed to reveal that he had voluntarily surrendered his automobile to be repossessed when he was unable to make regular payments even though according to the terms of the bankruptcy he could have kept the truck.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.c

In response to Question 37 he failed to reveal two judgments, one for over $1,000 filed in April 1998 (which he satisfied in February 2000) and one for over $3,000 filed against him in 1994 (which he satisfied in February 2000).

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.d

In response to Question 39, he failed to reveal financial delinquencies over 90 days late to three creditors: one for over $1,000 since 1995 which he had forgotten about (which he satisfied in February 2000); one to a dentist for $654 sent for collection in March 1999 (which he satisfied in February 2000) and the two judgments listed above.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.e

In response to Question 40 he failed to reveal his public record of civil court actions for a 1994 civil judgment for $207 for a state division of motor vehicles surcharge which he had satisfied in September 1995; he never had to go to court on this debt and was unaware that there was a public record of a civil court action.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.f

When the Applicant replied in November 2000 to DOHA interrogatories (Exhibit 3), he explained that he was confused as he thought that he was being asked again about financial issues he had fully explained to the DSS agent in March 2000.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied with Explanation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES