CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-13451.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-13451.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-13451.h1

deniedApr 15, 2004· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from long-standing, unresolved debts totaling approximately $4,900, which the applicant explicitly stated she had no intention of repaying.

Specifically, the applicant was indebted for $400 and $706 (a cellular phone bill), both past-due since at least April 2002. For the cellular debt, she provided a sworn statement in April 2002 indicating she "will not pay this bill." She also owed $2,667 for state aid she was not entitled to receive, a claim upheld by an Administrative Law Judge in 1997. Despite a lawsuit filed by the State in March 2002, the applicant continued to deny the claim and refused to make payments. Additionally, she owed $1,132 for a dog purchase, ceasing payments after concluding she was overcharged and stating she would not make further payments.

The judge determined that the applicant's consistent failure to meet her financial obligations and her expressed refusal to repay these debts adversely affected her judgment and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations, with debts delinquent since at least April 2002.
Applicant has expressed no intention to repay her debts, reflecting adversely on her judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 15, 2003
Answer filedJul 22, 2003Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateApr 15, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Long-standing Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Conditions Due to Applicant's Stated Intention Not to Repay Debts

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 multiple allegations of personal conduct related to financial irresponsibility, including long-standing debts and a refusal to pay them. However, the judge found for the applicant regarding the allegation of receiving state aid improperly, as there was insufficient evidence to determine intent.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $400.00. The debt has been past-due since at least April 2002.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $706.00. This cellular phone debt has been past-due since at least April 2002. In a signed, sworn statement that she gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in April 2002, she stated she 'will not pay this bill.'	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $2,667.00 as a result of receiving State aid to which she was not entitled. Applicant disputed the State's claim and demand for reimbursement, but following a hearing in 1997, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the State's claim. In March 2002, a lawsuit was filed by the State against applicant for payment of the debt. The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be determined from the record. Applicant still denies the State's claim, and will not make any payments on the debt.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $1,132.00. After purchasing a sick dog, applicant concluded she had been overcharged and stopped making payments on the debt. She will not make any further payments to this creditor.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.a	As noted above, it was determined that applicant received State aid to which she was not entitled. In essence, applicant was receiving State aid for her child at the same time she was receiving child support payments from the child's father. I cannot determine from the evidence, however, whether applicant knew she was not entitled to these payments at the time she was receiving them.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 has multiple long-standing debts totaling approximately $4,900, which have been delinquent since at least April 2002. The judge found these financial issues reflected adversely on the applicant's judgment and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $400.00. The debt has been past-due since at least April 2002. $400	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $706.00. This cellular phone debt has been past-due since at least April 2002. In a signed, sworn statement that she gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in April 2002, she stated she 'will not pay this bill.' $706	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $2,667.00 as a result of receiving State aid to which she was not entitled. Applicant disputed the State's claim and demand for reimbursement, but following a hearing in 1997, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the State's claim. $2,667	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $1,132.00. After purchasing a sick dog, applicant concluded she had been overcharged and stopped making payments on the debt. She will not make any further payments to this creditor. $1,132	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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

APPEARANCES

DATE: April 15, 2004

In Re: ---------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-13451 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant's long-standing indebtedness, and her stated intention not to address it, precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On July 15, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, 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 and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on July 22, 2003, and elected to have her case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about September 17, 2003. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on November 4, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 40 year old employee of a defense contractor. SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $400.00. The debt has been past-due since at least April 2002. SOR Allegation 1b: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $706.00. This cellular phone debt has been past-due since at least April 2002. In a signed, sworn statement that she gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in April 2002 , she stated she "will not pay this bill." SOR Allegation 1c: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the amount of $2,667.00 as a result of receiving State aid to which she was not entitled. Applicant disputed the State's claim and demand for reimbursement, but following a hearing in 1997, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the State's claim. In arch 2002, a lawsuit was filed by the State against applicant for payment of the debt. The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be determined from the record. Applicant still denies the State's claim, and will not make any payments on the debt. SOR Allegation 1d: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $1,132.00. After purchasing a sick dog, applicant concluded she had been overcharged and stopped making payments on the debt. She will not make any further payments to this creditor. In her response to the SOR, applicant denied each of the foregoing allegations and stated that she "filed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy." Because she provided no documentation to corroborate this statement, and in fact offered no other meaningful details about this alleged Bankruptcy filing (e.g., date filed, current status) I cannot give her statement about a Bankruptcy filing any weight. A personal financial statement prepared by applicant in April 2002 indicates that she has a negative monthly cash flow. This figure did not include payments to any of the four aforementioned creditors. SOR Allegation 2a: As noted above, it was determined that applicant received State aid to which she was not entitled. In essence, applicant was receiving State aid for her child at the same time she was receiving child support payments from the child's father. I cannot determine from the evidence, however, whether applicant knew she was not entitled to these payments at the time she was receiving them. For this reason, Guideline E is found for applicant.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that (1) applicant is indebted to at least four different creditors in the total amount of approximately $4,900.00, (2) these four debts have all been delinquent since at least April 2002, and (3) applicant has not made any recent payments to any of these long-standing creditors, and has no plans to make payments to any of these creditors. Applicant's failure to honor her financial obligations reflects adversely on her judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and suggests she cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. With respect to the Financial Considerations guideline, it is clear that Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) are applicable. It is equally clear that, given applicant's stated intention not to repay any of these creditors, none of the Mitigating Conditions of the Financial Considerations guideline is applicable. Based on the foregoing, Guideline F is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1a, 1b, 1cand 1dfound against applicant. PARAGRAPH 2: FOR THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances 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. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-13451.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-13451.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:56:48 AM] 02-13451.h1