Summary
Applicant is a 41-year-old married merchant mariner with one child. He has nine delinquent debts from the 1990s, an assault arrest from 1996, and two falsifications on his security clearance application, along with multiple motor vehicle code violations. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations or personal conduct concerns, but did mitigate the criminal conduct concern. Clearance is denied.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Hospital debt, $284 (1.a). Individual creditor, $147 (1.b). Bank credit card, $889 (1.c). Bank credit card, $1,597 (1.d). Bank credit card, $1,968 (1.e). Bank credit card, $1,581 (1.f). Bank credit card, $1,076 (1.g). Hospital bill, $1,444 (1.h). Dentist, $1,201 (1.i). Applicant was arrested in May 1996 for assault, but charges were never filed against him. The incident occurred when his wife called the police after he knocked on the window of their home when she locked him out. The judge found that this offense occurred eight years ago and has not been repeated, thus mitigating the concern (2.a).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A5.1.2.4, E2.A5.1.2.5. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A5.1.3.5. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has nine delinquent debts from the 1990s and has made no substantial efforts to repay them; Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent debts and an assault arrest on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor; The applicant's reliance on a law firm to dispute debts without making payments is not considered a good-faith effort to resolve financial issues.
Why the applicant was denied
- Applicant has nine delinquent debts from the 1990s and has made no substantial efforts to repay them.
- Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent debts and an assault arrest on his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor.
- The applicant's reliance on a law firm to dispute debts without making payments is not considered a good-faith effort to resolve financial issues.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts.
- E2.A5.1.2.4raisedPersonal Conduct That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.
- E2.A5.1.2.5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations.
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
- E2.A5.1.3.5appliedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.
Key rule quoted
“[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMar 8, 2004
- Answer filedMay 5, 2004
- Hearing heldDec 13, 2004
- Decision dateFeb 3, 2005
Cite for
- Denial of Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
- Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Concerns Due to the Passage of Time Under Guideline J