CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-11687.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-11687.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-11687.h1

deniedAug 13, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

This case involves a 46-year-old custodial employee of a defense contractor whose security clearance was denied due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts, acknowledging four of these totaling $2,475. While she claimed some debts were paid and expressed an intent to pay all, she provided no evidence of payment. One debt exceeding $6,000 had been written off, but no evidence confirmed it was no longer owed. Additionally, four other denied debts remained on her credit report without proof of payment.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to disclose these delinquent debts on her SF 86, despite multiple opportunities to provide evidence or clarify. She informed an investigator that she did not understand the meaning of "delinquent." The adjudicator determined that a stated intent to pay was insufficient to mitigate the allegations.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant incurred substantial delinquent debts, failed to provide evidence of payment for those she admitted, and did not disclose these financial obligations on her SF 86. This demonstrated a lack of judgment and reliability, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts, admitting to four debts totaling $2,475.00.
She failed to provide evidence of payment for the admitted debts.
Applicant did not disclose her delinquent debts on her SF 86, indicating a lack of judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedEvidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.1raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2003
Answer filedDec 19, 2003Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateAug 13, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Delinquency Under Guideline F
Failure to Disclose Debts on SF 86 Under Guideline E
Lack of Mitigating Evidence for Financial Issues

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, specifically regarding the applicant's failure to disclose delinquent debts on her SF 86. The judge determined that the omission was deliberate and did not find any mitigating conditions applicable, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to acknowledge the delinquent debts on questions 39 on her SF 86.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant incurred approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts, admitting to four debts totaling $2,475. Despite stating an intent to pay, she provided no evidence of payment and failed to disclose these debts on her SF 86. The judge found all allegations under Guideline F against the applicant, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. $9,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted four of the nine debts cited in the SOR for a total amount of $2,475.00. $2,475	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant stated that some debts had been paid and that she intended to pay them all.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	One debt for over $6,000.00 had been written off but there is no evidence that she does not still owe it. $6,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Four other debts that she denied are still on her most recent credit report and she gave no evidence of payment either with her answer or when given the opportunity to respond to the FORM over three months later.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant failed to acknowledge the delinquent debts on questions 39 on her SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant advised the investigator that she did not know the meaning of 'delinquent.'	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant has acknowledged some of the delinquent debts and she failed to report them on her SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	A mere stated intent to pay the debts is not sufficient to mitigate the allegations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant is a 46-year-old custodial employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. She admitted four of the nine debts cited in the SOR for a total amount of $2,475.00. She stated that some had been paid and her intent to pay them all. She did not offer any evidence of payment. Applicant failed to acknowledged the delinquent debts on questions 39 on her SF 86. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 02-11687.h1

DATE: 08/13/2004

DATE: August 13, 2004

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-11687

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

STATEMENT OF CASE

On November 19, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, 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. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement dated December 19, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on March 24, 2004. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not respond and the case was assigned to me on June 8, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact:

Applicant is a 46-year-old custodial employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. She admitted four of the nine debts cited in the SOR for a total amount of $2,475.00. She stated that some debts had been paid and that she intended to pay them all. One debt for over $6,000.00 had been written off but there is no evidence that she does not still owe it. Four other debts that she denied are still on her most recent credit report and she gave no evidence of payment either with her answer or when given the opportunity to respond to the FORM over three months later.

Applicant failed to acknowledged the delinquent debts on questions 39 on her SF 86. She advised the investigator that she did know the meaning of "delinquent."

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (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 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. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b). Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR.

Applicant's extensive delinquent debts prompted the allegation in the SOR of violation of Guideline F in that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.) and that the conditions resulting in the problems were largely beyond the person's control such as divorce. (E2.A6.1.3.3.)

Also alleged under Guideline E is Applicant's falsification of her SF 86 by failing to disclose the delinquent debts. Such failure might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.). Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.)

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

Applicant has acknowledged some of the delinquent debts and she failed to report them on her SF 86. A mere stated intent to pay the debts is not sufficient to mitigate the allegations. Applicant has had almost two years of college. I do not accept her excuse that she did not understand the term "delinquent" and find that her omission was deliberate as required by the guideline. Applicant has failed to rebut the allegations in the SOR. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2.Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jason Perry, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-11687.h1.htm[6/24/2021 10:55:31 AM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se