CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-01395.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-01395.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/15/2002
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: William R. Kearney
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant was alleged to have falsified information on her security clearance application regarding delinquent debts. However, the judge concluded that the applicant was unaware of the debts at the time of her application and did not intend to deceive the government. Therefore, the allegations were mitigated, and the applicant was granted clearance.
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. 01-01395.h1

grantedJan 15, 2002· Hon. William R. Kearney· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old female applicant, with a history of three marriages, was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited her alleged failure to list delinquent financial accounts on her SF-86 form, specifically identifying multiple debts totaling $7,500.00 from her second marriage, for which her ex-husband had taken responsibility. Additionally, two instances of $200.00 in medical bills for her children were noted as the responsibility of her first husband.

The allegations included falsifying material facts on her SF-86 by not listing accounts more than 180 days delinquent. However, the judge found that the applicant was unaware of the delinquency of these debts when she completed her SF-86.

The clearance was granted because the applicant credibly demonstrated that the debts were the responsibility of her ex-husbands, not her own. She also provided evidence of maintaining a good credit score and timely payment of her personal debts since her last divorce, indicating a sound financial status.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated that the debts in question were the responsibility of her ex-husbands, not hers.
She provided credible evidence that she was unaware of the delinquent debts when completing her SF-86 form.
The applicant has maintained a good credit score and has paid her own debts in a timely manner since her last marriage.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2notedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations

Mitigating

F1appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
F3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control (e.g., Divorce or Separation)
E2notedNone Apply

Key Rule Quoted

“The gravamen of a falsification case is whether an Applicant has been less than truthful and candid with the Government, not whether the Government was ultimately misled or deceived.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 11, 2001
Answer filedAug 7, 2001Sworn written statement submitted.
Hearing heldOct 23, 2001
Decision dateJan 15, 2002

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Obligations Due to Ex-spouse Responsibility
Unawareness of Debts as a Defense Against Falsification Allegations
Good Credit History as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions

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 in favor of the applicant regarding the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant was alleged to have falsified information on her security clearance application regarding delinquent debts. However, the judge concluded that the applicant was unaware of the debts at the time of her application and did not intend to deceive the government. Therefore, the allegations were mitigated, and the applicant was granted clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant falsified material facts when she completed her Security Clearance Application (Standard Form 86) by failing to list financial accounts more than 180 days delinquent.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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's financial issues stemmed from marital debts that were the responsibility of her ex-husbands, which they failed to pay. The applicant demonstrated that she has been managing her finances responsibly since her last divorce and has no current debts or delinquencies. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Debts totaling $7,500.00 accrued during her marriage to her second husband, who took responsibility for the payment of these obligations. $7,500	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Debts totaling $7,500.00 accrued during her marriage to her second husband, who took responsibility for the payment of these obligations. $7,500	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Medical bills for their children totaling $200.00, which were the responsibility of her first husband. $200	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Debts totaling $7,500.00 accrued during her marriage to her second husband, who took responsibility for the payment of these obligations. $7,500	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Medical bills for their children totaling $200.00, which were the responsibility of her first husband. $200	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—

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.