ISCR Case 02-11434.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-11434.h1

deniedNov 17, 2004· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old armaments technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial difficulties and a finding of dishonesty in his security clearance application.

The applicant's financial issues included an overall indebtedness of $51,619.00 to seven creditors, with some debts becoming delinquent in the late 1990s and others as recently as 2003. These difficulties reportedly began in February 1998 following a job-related injury. The applicant voluntarily surrendered a trailer and an automobile due to an inability to maintain payments and began borrowing money to pay bills in 2002.

Despite claims of paying most creditors, these were not supported by credit bureau reports, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of such payments or detailed information about his injury's financial impact. Furthermore, the applicant provided dishonest answers on his security clearance application, specifically denying delinquent debts and repossessions, which were contradicted by credit reports. The judge found that the applicant's failure to provide detailed evidence and his dishonest answers were unmitigated, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide detailed evidence explaining the extent of his work-related injury and its impact on his financial obligations.
The applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations was significant, with over $51,000 in delinquent debt.
The applicant provided dishonest answers on his security clearance application regarding repossessions and delinquent debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
E DC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire Used to Determine Security Clearance Eligibility.

Mitigating

F MC 3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of extenuating circumstances.
F MC 6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.The applicant did not demonstrate any steps taken to repay the creditors identified in the SOR.

Key Rule Quoted

“The granting (or continuance) of a security clearance under this Directive may only be done upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2003
Answer filedJan 26, 2004Applicant elected to have the case decided on a written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 17, 2004

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Dishonesty in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Related to Personal Conduct

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
2.a	The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

2.b

The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

2.c

The deliberate omission, falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's overall indebtedness of $51,619.00 to seven creditors constitutes a history of not meeting financial obligations. $51,619	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	Some of the debts became delinquent in the late 1990s while others reached past due status as recently as 2003.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.c	Applicant's financial difficulties began in February 1998 when he was injured at his job as a mechanic for the county road department.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	Applicant told the trailer company to pick-up the trailer because he could not maintain the payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	Applicant told the auto dealer to retrieve the auto for the same reason.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.f	In 2002, Applicant began to borrow money to pay his bills.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.h	A credit bureau report identifies debts becoming delinquent at least 180 days before Applicant signed his SCA on April 4, 2000.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.i	Applicant answered 'no' to the delinquent debt question because he did not believe he was more than 60 days late on any debt.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.j	Applicant's unsupported claims of paying his creditors are not borne out by the CBRs.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.k	Applicant has not presented any evidence that supports his claim that he paid most of the creditors.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's overall indebtedness of $51,619.00 to seven creditors constitutes a history of not meeting financial obligations.

$51,619

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.b

Some of the debts became delinquent in the late 1990s while others reached past due status as recently as 2003.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.c

Applicant's financial difficulties began in February 1998 when he was injured at his job as a mechanic for the county road department.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.d

Applicant told the trailer company to pick-up the trailer because he could not maintain the payments.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.e

Applicant told the auto dealer to retrieve the auto for the same reason.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.f

In 2002, Applicant began to borrow money to pay his bills.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.h

A credit bureau report identifies debts becoming delinquent at least 180 days before Applicant signed his SCA on April 4, 2000.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.i

Applicant answered 'no' to the delinquent debt question because he did not believe he was more than 60 days late on any debt.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.j

Applicant's unsupported claims of paying his creditors are not borne out by the CBRs.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.k

Applicant has not presented any evidence that supports his claim that he paid most of the creditors.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

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