CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-03183.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-03183.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/27/2002
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: John R. Erck
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a failure to disclose significant financial obligations on the SF 86. The applicant admitted to not being truthful about his financial circumstances, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.
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. 01-03183.h1

deniedDec 27, 2002· Hon. John R. Erck· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old trucking company dispatcher was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from over $17,000 in unpaid debts and the applicant's failure to disclose these financial obligations, a repossession, and legal actions on his February 1999 SF 86 security clearance application.

The applicant's debts included $511 to a state tax department, $101 to a dentist, $1,016 to a utility company, $419 for medical services, $271 to a bank for a dishonored check, and various amounts to credit card companies, a collection agency, a department store, and a credit company, totaling over $17,000. One debt of $1,243 was unrecognized by the applicant. While initial financial difficulties were attributed to a business downturn and his wife's job loss, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve these debts over the 30 months prior to the decision.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's failure to satisfy numerous financial obligations and his lack of candor in disclosing these issues on his SF 86 indicated untrustworthiness and posed a security risk. Minimal efforts to address the debts since his current employment began did not mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to satisfy numerous financial obligations totaling over $17,000.
Applicant did not disclose delinquent debts and legal actions on his SF 86, indicating untrustworthiness.
Minimal efforts to address debts since employment began did not mitigate security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 7, 2002
Answer filedJun 19, 2002
Hearing heldSep 23, 2002
Decision dateDec 27, 2002

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Dishonesty on 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a failure to disclose significant financial obligations on the SF 86. The applicant admitted to not being truthful about his financial circumstances, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's failure to disclose his delinquent financial obligations in response to pertinent questions on the SF 86 (Security Clearance Application) he completed in February 1999.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant's failure to disclose a repossession on the SF 86.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant's failure to disclose legal actions filed against him on the SF 86.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including numerous overdue debts totaling over $17,000. The applicant's financial issues were initially caused by circumstances beyond his control, but he failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve these debts, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	An indebtedness of $511.00 to Creditor A, the State A Department of Taxation for income tax payable in 1996 (on income earned during 1995). $511	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	An indebtedness of $101.00 to Creditor B, a dentist for services provided to Applicant's son. $101	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.c	An indebtedness of $1,243.00 to Creditor C; Applicant does not recognize this creditor, and claims to have no knowledge of the origin of this debt. $1,243	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	An indebtedness of $1,016.00 to Creditor D, a local utility company for a home heating system that has never functioned properly. $1,016	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	An indebtedness of $419.00 to Creditor E, a provider of medical services. $419	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.f	An indebtedness of $271.00 to Creditor F, a bank, as the result of a dishonored check. $271	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.g	An indebtedness of $3,858.00 to Creditor G, a credit card. $3,858	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.h	An indebtedness of $743.00 to Creditor H, a collection agency. $743	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.i	An indebtedness of $1,201.00 to Creditor I, a national department store. $1,201	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.j	An indebtedness of $1,913.00 to Creditor F (3), a bank, on a line-of-credit account Applicant opened and used when he was operating his own business. $1,913	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.k	An indebtedness of $2,500.00 to Creditor H, a credit company affiliated with one of the U.S. auto manufacturers. $2,500	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.l	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

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.