CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-01183.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-01183.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date12/13/2001
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: William R. Kearney
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant did not willfully falsify information on his security clearance application regarding delinquent debts. The applicant was unaware of these debts at the time of completing the application and took prompt action to satisfy them once he became aware. The judge concluded that the applicant successfully mitigated the personal conduct concerns and ruled in favor of the applicant.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-01183.h1

grantedDec 13, 2001· Hon. William R. Kearney· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old married male, employed by a U.S. Government contractor, was granted a secret security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant falsified his SF-86 on March 24, 2000, by negatively answering questions 38 and 39, and deliberately failing to disclose four debts that were delinquent for over 180 days. Additionally, a Personal Financial Statement submitted during an interview did not include these four debts, yet showed a monthly surplus of approximately $1,221.84.

The judge found that the applicant was unaware of his delinquent debts when he completed the SF-86. Upon realizing his indebtedness, he promptly satisfied all creditors. The decision highlighted that there was no evidence of willful misconduct or negligence in the applicant's actions, and his omissions were not deliberate.

Ultimately, the applicant's positive steps to resolve his financial issues and the lack of willful intent in his initial disclosures led to the clearance being GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant was not aware of his delinquent debts at the time of completing the SF-86.
He promptly satisfied all his creditors once he became aware of the debts.
There was no evidence of willful misconduct or negligence in the applicant's actions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts

Mitigating

F.6appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts
E.5appliedPositive Steps to Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Coercion

Key Rule Quoted

“"The clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 2, 2001
Answer filedJul 27, 2001
Hearing heldOct 2, 2001
Decision dateDec 13, 2001

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Non-willful Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not willfully falsify information on his security clearance application regarding delinquent debts. The applicant was unaware of these debts at the time of completing the application and took prompt action to satisfy them once he became aware. The judge concluded that the applicant successfully mitigated the personal conduct concerns and ruled in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant falsified material facts on his Questionnaire for National Security Positions, SF-86, when he executed it on March 24, 2000, in that he answered questions 38 and 39 in the negative.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Denied	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly
2.b	The Applicant deliberately failed to disclose the four debts that were set out in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Denied	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had a history of delinquent debts but successfully mitigated the financial concerns by promptly satisfying all creditors once aware of the debts. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all financial allegations, concluding that the applicant's actions demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has been delinquent more than 180 days on these debts.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.b	The Applicant has been delinquent more than 180 days on these debts.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.c	The Applicant has been delinquent more than 180 days on these debts.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.d	The Applicant has been delinquent more than 180 days on these debts.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.e	The Applicant submitted a Personal Financial Statement at the time of the interview with the DSS Agent, which showed that he would have approximately $1,221.84 remaining each month after paying his monthly expenses, which did not include the four debts listed in the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.