ISCR Case 02-13255.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-13255.h1

grantedApr 9, 2004· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old electronics technician was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial difficulties were primarily attributed to his wife's serious health problems and his frequent work-related absences.

Specific financial allegations included several delinquent medical bills, a personal loan resulting in an $11,207 judgment, an $8,000 debt from a voluntary vehicle repossession, and long-distance phone charges incurred by his daughter. The applicant has since paid some debts, including a $54 debt and an $187 medical bill, and is making $50 monthly payments on a $3,654 debt. Another medical debt was written off by the creditor. He has been unable to locate the current holder of the repossession debt.

Regarding personal conduct, the applicant failed to disclose the judgment, the 1995 automobile repossession, and being more than 90 days delinquent on accounts in his October 5, 2001, security clearance application. However, his failure to disclose these items was deemed unintentional. The applicant's efforts to resolve his financial issues, including consulting a credit counseling service, and the credible explanation for his non-disclosures, led to the mitigation of security concerns, and the clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's financial delinquencies were largely due to his wife's medical issues and his frequent absences from home.
He has taken steps to address his financial situation, including consulting a credit counseling service and making payments on debts.
The applicant's failure to disclose debts was found to be unintentional and not indicative of a lack of trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

MC 3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
MC 4appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem and There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
MC 6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 11, 2003
Answer filedSep 12, 2003
Hearing heldDec 10, 2003
Decision dateApr 9, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Due to Personal Circumstances Under Guideline F
Unintentional Omissions in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
The Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Delinquencies

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	Applicant failed to disclose the judgment that had been entered against him in response to two questions in the security clearance application (SF 86) he submitted on October 5, 2001.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt	—
2.b	Applicant also failed to disclose the 1995 repossession of an automobile in the SF 86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt	—
2.c	Lastly, Applicant failed to disclose he was more than 90 days delinquent on any accounts in the SF 86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken (g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt	—
2.d	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

2.a

Applicant failed to disclose the judgment that had been entered against him in response to two questions in the security clearance application (SF 86) he submitted on October 5, 2001.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

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

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt

—

2.b

Applicant also failed to disclose the 1995 repossession of an automobile in the SF 86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

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

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt

—

2.c

Lastly, Applicant failed to disclose he was more than 90 days delinquent on any accounts in the SF 86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

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

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt

—

2.d

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The first debt, SOR subparagraph 1.a., in the amount of $54.00 was previously overlooked by Applicant and his wife as they paid other debts to the same creditor. It has now been paid-in-full. $54	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The debts alleged in SOR subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.c. were not initially paid by Applicant because it was his understanding they had been written-off by the medical-provider creditor in an agreement to settle a legal action his wife had instituted against a hospital alleging malpractice in the care of her foot injury that almost necessitated amputation of her leg. Although Applicant is still disputing his liability for these debts, he has begun to make $50.00 monthly payments on the $3,654.00 debt (AE 6) and has paid the $187.00 debt. (AE 7) $3,654	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The last delinquent medical bill, SOR subparagraph 1.d., arose from the providers failure to submit the claim to Applicant's medical insurer, despite repeated requests from Applicant to do so. Eventually, the creditor wrote the debt off as charged off account. The creditor has now informed Applicant and his wife that because the account was written off as a bad debt there is no payment owing.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The $11,207.00 debt, SOR subparagraph 1.e., arose from a personal loan that became delinquent in 1998, and resulted in a judgment being entered against Applicant after approximately six months of no payments being made. AE 17 discloses that Applicant was away from home on business almost continuously during this period. His wife testified that between her hospitalizations and her daughter becoming pregnant she did not handle this account well and was actually in the hospital when the judgment was entered. $11,207	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The $8,000.00 debt, SOR subparagraph 1.f., resulted from a voluntary repossession in which Applicant returned a vehicle he considered a "lemon" to the dealer. No payment has been made on this account, and, because the account has been sold on a number of occasions, Applicant, even with the assistance of a consumer credit counseling service, has been unable to locate the company presently holding the account. $8,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The last account, SOR subparagraph 1.g., represents long-distance phone charges incurred by Applicant's daughter. Applicant and his wife initially refused to pay the bill themselves, and instead attempted to force their daughter to pay it. Instead of actually paying the bill, the daughter misrepresented to them on several occasions that it had been paid. The bill has now been paid-in-full.	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

The first debt, SOR subparagraph 1.a., in the amount of $54.00 was previously overlooked by Applicant and his wife as they paid other debts to the same creditor. It has now been paid-in-full.

$54

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.b

The debts alleged in SOR subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.c. were not initially paid by Applicant because it was his understanding they had been written-off by the medical-provider creditor in an agreement to settle a legal action his wife had instituted against a hospital alleging malpractice in the care of her foot injury that almost necessitated amputation of her leg. Although Applicant is still disputing his liability for these debts, he has begun to make $50.00 monthly payments on the $3,654.00 debt (AE 6) and has paid the $187.00 debt. (AE 7)

$3,654

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.c

The last delinquent medical bill, SOR subparagraph 1.d., arose from the providers failure to submit the claim to Applicant's medical insurer, despite repeated requests from Applicant to do so. Eventually, the creditor wrote the debt off as charged off account. The creditor has now informed Applicant and his wife that because the account was written off as a bad debt there is no payment owing.

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.d

The $11,207.00 debt, SOR subparagraph 1.e., arose from a personal loan that became delinquent in 1998, and resulted in a judgment being entered against Applicant after approximately six months of no payments being made. AE 17 discloses that Applicant was away from home on business almost continuously during this period. His wife testified that between her hospitalizations and her daughter becoming pregnant she did not handle this account well and was actually in the hospital when the judgment was entered.

$11,207

For Applicant

Personal Loan Debt

Admitted

—

1.e

The $8,000.00 debt, SOR subparagraph 1.f., resulted from a voluntary repossession in which Applicant returned a vehicle he considered a "lemon" to the dealer. No payment has been made on this account, and, because the account has been sold on a number of occasions, Applicant, even with the assistance of a consumer credit counseling service, has been unable to locate the company presently holding the account.

$8,000

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

—

1.f

The last account, SOR subparagraph 1.g., represents long-distance phone charges incurred by Applicant's daughter. Applicant and his wife initially refused to pay the bill themselves, and instead attempted to force their daughter to pay it. Instead of actually paying the bill, the daughter misrepresented to them on several occasions that it had been paid. The bill has now been paid-in-full.

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

1.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

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