ISCR Case 01-13299.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-13299.h1

grantedApr 2, 2003· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old Vietnamese immigrant was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) for failing to disclose two minor debts on his 1998 security clearance application. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant did not truthfully answer Question 28 regarding debts and, in 2001, provided a false reason for the non-disclosure to an investigator. It was also alleged that the applicant lied on his application to protect his clearance.

However, the judge found the applicant's explanations credible, determining that the non-disclosure stemmed from a misunderstanding of the credit process and language barriers, rather than an intent to deceive. The applicant promptly settled the debts upon discovery, demonstrating responsibility.

The clearance was granted based on the applicant's overall reliability, good faith efforts to rectify the situation, and strong character and work performance. The judge applied mitigating conditions, concluding that the applicant's lack of knowledge about the debts was credible and attributed to his inexperience with American credit systems.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated prompt payment of debts upon discovery, showing responsibility.
The applicant's lack of knowledge about the debts was credible, attributed to his inexperience with American credit systems.
The applicant's overall character and work performance were strong indicators of reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedFalsification of Information to Protect Security Clearance

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.1appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated
E2.A5.1.3.2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
E2.A5.1.3.3appliedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 25, 2002
Answer filedOct 11, 2002Applicant initially requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2003Hearing conducted in Arlington, Virginia.
Decision dateApr 2, 2003

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Financial Oversight
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Due to Inexperience
Impact of Immigrant Status on Understanding of Credit Obligations

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	Applicant failed to disclose certain debts on his security clearance application in 1998.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly Claimed Other
1.a.1	In 2001, applicant purportedly told an investigator a false reason for the non-disclosure of his purported debt.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Other
1.a.2	Applicant did not answer truthfully Question 28 of the security clearance application regarding debts.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant's debts were not disclosed due to a misunderstanding of the credit process and language barriers.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Credited Corrected Falsification Promptly Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant lied on his security clearance application about these two debts to protect his security clearance.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant failed to disclose certain debts on his security clearance application in 1998.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Financial

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Credited

Corrected Falsification Promptly

Claimed

Other

1.a.1

In 2001, applicant purportedly told an investigator a false reason for the non-disclosure of his purported debt.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

—

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Other

1.a.2

Applicant did not answer truthfully Question 28 of the security clearance application regarding debts.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Financial

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Credited

Corrected Falsification Promptly

Claimed

Other

1.b

Applicant's debts were not disclosed due to a misunderstanding of the credit process and language barriers.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Financial

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Credited

Corrected Falsification Promptly

Claimed

Other

1.c

Applicant lied on his security clearance application about these two debts to protect his security clearance.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

—

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Other

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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