CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-09781.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-09781.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-09781.h1

deniedJun 25, 2002· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A defense contractor programmer was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to a history of significant financial delinquencies. The Statement of Reasons detailed nine long-standing, past-due debts totaling over $6,000. These included multiple state income tax liens from 1992, 1996, 1997, and 1998, with one lien for $3,253.13 partially reduced by wage garnishment. Other debts included a credit account past-due by $689.23, an outstanding balance of $2,584.65 for merchandise/services the applicant disputed, and various other creditor debts ranging from $54.33 to $703.83, with some accounts charged off.

The applicant claimed to be using an insurance settlement to resolve his debts and stated his current monthly income exceeded expenses. However, the denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide any corroborating evidence of debt satisfaction or settlement negotiations.

The decision highlighted that the applicant's financial difficulties predated his wife's inability to work, indicating a pattern of not meeting financial obligations. This lack of evidence and a history of financial irresponsibility led to concerns about the applicant's judgment and reliability, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has nine long-standing, past-due debts totaling over $6,000.00.
Applicant provided no evidence to support claims of debt satisfaction or negotiation for settlement.
The applicant's financial difficulties began prior to his wife's inability to work, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 26, 2001
Answer filedDec 14, 2001Applicant elected to have case determined on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJun 25, 2002

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Lack of Corroborating Evidence for Debt Resolution Claims
Impact of Financial History 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple long-standing debts totaling over $6,000, which he failed to adequately address or provide evidence of payment. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that granting a security clearance was not consistent with the national interest.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was indebted to the State for unpaid State income tax for tax year 1992. In 1998, a tax lien in the amount of $3,253.13 was filed against him. Apparently his wages were garnished, which reduced the debt to $87.46. $87	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to the State for unpaid State income tax for tax years 1996, 1997 and 1998. In 1999, a tax lien in the amount of $1,493.55 was filed against him. $1,493	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	This credit account was opened in May 1999. As of February 2000, this account was past-due in the amount of $689.23. $689	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Although applicant admits that he purchased merchandise/services from a company at the cost of $2,584.65, he does not believe he is responsible for payment because, in his words, he did not use the services offered, and he tried returning the merchandise to the original creditor for a refund without success. $2,584	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $565.00 for an account opened in 1993. $565	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	Applicant became indebted to this creditor, a dentist, in the amount of $54.33. $54	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $703.83. This debt has been delinquent for over two years and has been "charged off." $703	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $300.00. This debt has been delinquent for over two years and has been "charged off." $300	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	As of February 2000, applicant was indebted to this creditor for a past-due account in the approximate amount of $160.00. $160	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.j	Applicant's current monthly income exceeds his current monthly expenses. Applicant claims that he has been using the proceeds from an insurance settlement that resulted from an automobile accident involving his wife to pay off his debts. (low confidence)	Unknown	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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: June 25, 2002

In Re:

--------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 01-09781

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's long-standing indebtedness precludes a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information at the present time. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On November 26, 2001, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on December 14, 2001, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about February 21, 2002. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on April 1, 2002. Department Counsel did not object to applicant's response. The case was assigned to me on April 9, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is employed as a programmer by a defense contractor.

SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant was indebted to the State for unpaid State income tax for tax year 1992. In 1998, a tax lien in the amount of $3,253.13 was filed against him. Apparently his wages were garnished, which reduced the debt to $87.46. Applicant states in his response to the SOR that this debt has "been paid in full," but offered no documentary evidence to corroborate this statement. Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to the State in the approximate amount of $87.46. SOR Allegation 1b: Applicant is indebted to the State for unpaid State income tax for tax years 1996, 1997 and 1998. In 1999, a tax lien in the amount of $1,493.55 was filed against him. In his response to the SOR, applicant states that this debt has "been paid in full," but offered no documentary evidence to support this statement. Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to the State in the approximate amount of $1,493.55.

SOR Allegation 1c: This credit account was opened in May 1999. As of February 2000, this account was past-due in the amount of $689.23. Applicant states in his response to the SOR that this debt has been "paid in full," but offered no documentary evidence to corroborate this statement. Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $689.23.

SOR Allegation 1d: Although applicant admits that he purchased merchandise/services from a company at the cost of $2,584.65, he does not believe he is responsible for payment because, in his words, he did not use the services offered, and he tried returning the merchandise to the original creditor for a refund without success. Since applicant failed to offer any evidence that establishes he was entitled to rescind the purchase contract and/or receive a refund, I find that he is still owes this creditor $2,584.65. (1)

SOR Allegation 1e: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $565.00 for an account opened in 1993. Applicant states in his response to the SOR that this delinquent account has been "paid in full," but offered no documentary evidence to corroborate this statement. Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $565.00.

SOR Allegation 1f: Applicant became indebted to this creditor, a dentist, in the amount of $54.33. Given applicant's inconsistent reasons for disputing the debt, (2) I find that he is still indebted to the dentist in the amount alleged.

SOR Allegation 1g: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $703.83. This debt has been delinquent for over two years and has been "charged off." Applicant states in his response to the SOR that he "is currently in negotiation to settle this debt."

SOR Allegation 1h: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $300.00. This debt has been delinquent for over two years and has been "charged off." Applicant states in his response to the SOR that he is "currently in negotiation to settle this debt."

SOR Allegation 1i: As of February 2000, applicant was indebted to this creditor for a past-due account in the approximate amount of $160.00. He states in his response to the SOR that the debt has "been paid in full." However, he offered no documentary evidence to corroborate this statement. Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $160.00.

SOR Allegation 1j: Applicant's current monthly income exceeds his current monthly expenses.

Applicant claims that he has been using the proceeds from an insurance settlement that resulted from an automobile accident involving his wife to pay off his debts. However, as noted above, he offered no independent proof that he has satisfied any of the aforementioned debts.

According to applicant, his financial difficulties began in 1998 when his wife had to stop working because of health problems. It is noted, however, that at least some of his income tax debt became delinquent prior to his wife's inability to work.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into conditions that could raise security concerns and conditions that could mitigate security concerns) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following conditions are applicable:

Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions:

1. A history of not meeting financial obligations.

2. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

Mitigating Conditions:

None.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant has nine long-standing, past-due debts totaling over $6,000.00, and that except for a garnishment of his wages that reduced one tax debt, applicant has taken no action toward satisfying them. These facts reflect adversely on applicant's judgment and reliability.

Applicant claims that he has satisfied a number of the debts in question and is negotiating the settlement of others, but he offered absolutely no evidence to support his claims. The fact that he submitted eight pages of documents to support his statements about his work experience, educational pursuits, and membership in the Knights of Colombus, leads me to conclude that this failure was not a mere oversight on applicant's part, but rather was due to the fact he has no evidence to offer corroborating his alleged satisfaction of the debts.

In view of applicant's long-standing financial delinquencies, and the lack of any evidence that would suggest his financial situation is likely to significantly improve any time soon, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information at the present time.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.

____________________________

Joseph Testan

Administrative Judge

1. The account was referred to collection, and allegedly the debt now stands at $3,114.91. Because the validity of the increase in debt has not been established, I find that applicant is indebted in the original amount owed, i.e., $2,584.65.

2. In a signed, sworn statement dated February 4, 2000, he stated that the dentist "was supposed to have taken care of this bill by getting his work precertified by my dental insurance." In his response to the SOR, applicant stated that this debt resulted from the "dentist's refusal honor (sic) his agreement as a preferred provider to discount his services."

FOOTNOTES

01-09781.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-09781.h1.html[7/2/2021 2:18:57 PM] 01-09781.h1