ISCR Case 02-01444.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-01444.h1

deniedMay 24, 2004· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old electronic technician was denied a security clearance primarily due to significant financial concerns and personal conduct issues, specifically falsification of his security clearance application. The applicant had accumulated 27 delinquent debts totaling over $13,000. He had made no material repayment efforts and provided no concrete plan for addressing these debts, stating he was awaiting the outcome of his divorce proceedings to determine responsibility for joint obligations.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's criminal conduct history. He was arrested and charged in 1989 for passing worthless checks, pleading no contest and receiving a sentence including restitution, a fine, and jail time. Additionally, he faced two separate charges for passing worthless checks in 1993, both of which were ultimately not prosecuted.

Crucially, the applicant falsified his security clearance application (SF-86) by omitting the two 1993 bad check charges. The judge found that the combination of unaddressed delinquent debts, lack of a repayment plan, and the deliberate omission of criminal history on his application raised significant security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of delinquent debts totaling over $13,000, which he has not addressed.
The applicant falsified his SF-86 by omitting two bad check charges from 1993, which were within the relevant time period.
The applicant provided no documented plan for repaying his debts or addressing his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
DC 3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.
DC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts.

Mitigating

MC 3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.
MC 1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
MC 6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.The applicant has not made meaningful efforts to address his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 18, 2003
Answer filedAug 20, 2003
Hearing heldFeb 19, 2004rescheduled from February 18, 2004
Decision dateMay 24, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J

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
3.a	Applicant falsified his security clearance application (SF-86) by omitting his two 1993 bad check writing charges, which ultimately were not prosecuted.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant falsified his security clearance application (SF-86) by omitting his two 1993 bad check writing charges, which ultimately were not prosecuted.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

3.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant is alleged to have accumulated delinquent debts: 27 in all totaling in excess of $13,000.00. $13,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.b	Applicant has been unwilling to address his debts on the advice of his attorney pending the outcome of his pending divorce.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.c	Applicant has made no arrangements to satisfy any of his debts pending dissolution of his marriage to W.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.d	Applicant has not paid most of his debts despite evidenced ability to do so in his September 1999 personal financial statement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.e	Applicant has deferred payments on his debts pending a final decision from the court hearing his divorce petition.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.f	Applicant has expressed uncertainty as to how the court might divide his joint and several debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.g	Applicant has not provided a documented plan for repaying the creditors should his wife fail to do so.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.h	Applicant remains obligated, jointly and severally, on his old debts which exceed $13,000.00 in the aggregate. $13,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.i	Applicant has not made any material repayment efforts or concrete plan for addressing his debts in the future.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.j	Applicant has expressed a willingness to address his debts once the divorce court determines who is responsible for them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.k	Applicant has indicated that he would probably file for bankruptcy if the court unexpectedly allocates all of the debts to him.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.l	Applicant has not provided any evidence of a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.m–2.aa	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant is alleged to have accumulated delinquent debts: 27 in all totaling in excess of $13,000.00.

$13,000

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.b

Applicant has been unwilling to address his debts on the advice of his attorney pending the outcome of his pending divorce.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.c

Applicant has made no arrangements to satisfy any of his debts pending dissolution of his marriage to W.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.d

Applicant has not paid most of his debts despite evidenced ability to do so in his September 1999 personal financial statement.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.e

Applicant has deferred payments on his debts pending a final decision from the court hearing his divorce petition.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.f

Applicant has expressed uncertainty as to how the court might divide his joint and several debts.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.g

Applicant has not provided a documented plan for repaying the creditors should his wife fail to do so.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.h

Applicant remains obligated, jointly and severally, on his old debts which exceed $13,000.00 in the aggregate.

$13,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.i

Applicant has not made any material repayment efforts or concrete plan for addressing his debts in the future.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.j

Applicant has expressed a willingness to address his debts once the divorce court determines who is responsible for them.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.k

Applicant has indicated that he would probably file for bankruptcy if the court unexpectedly allocates all of the debts to him.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.l

Applicant has not provided any evidence of a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

2.m–2.aa

15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	arrested and charged in May 1989 with passing worthless checks, to which he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to make restitution, pay a fine and serve 15 days in jail	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	arraigned and charged in May 1993 with passing worthless checks (nolle prossed in June 1993)	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	arraigned and charged with two counts of passing worthless checks in July 1993 (nolle prossed in March 1994)	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

arrested and charged in May 1989 with passing worthless checks, to which he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to make restitution, pay a fine and serve 15 days in jail

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

arraigned and charged in May 1993 with passing worthless checks (nolle prossed in June 1993)

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

1.c

arraigned and charged with two counts of passing worthless checks in July 1993 (nolle prossed in March 1994)

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES