ISCR Case 02-14249.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-14249.h1

deniedJun 18, 2003· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations of approximately $10,700 in unpaid debts, including $1,862 to a military exchange, $5,852 to a bank, $289 and $242 to two separate telephone service providers, and an additional $2,481 on a collection account. As of February 8, 2002, none of these debts had been paid.

Furthermore, the applicant was found to have falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application (SF-86), executed on April 28, 2000. He responded "no" to Questions 38 and 39, failing to disclose the aforementioned financial delinquencies. The applicant admitted to the debts and expressed an intention to pay them, but did not provide specific plans or evidence of payment.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to disclose financial delinquencies on his SF-86, his admission of falsification, and the fact that his debts remained unpaid without demonstrated good-faith efforts toward resolution. The judge determined that the applicant's financial issues were longstanding and not isolated incidents.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to disclose financial delinquencies on his SF-86, admitting to falsification.
Applicant's debts remain unpaid, and he did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve them.
The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were longstanding and not isolated incidents.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing.
E2.A6.1.3.2rejectedIt Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant's financial delinquencies were not isolated.
E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not provide evidence of any payment efforts.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated IncidentThe falsifications were not isolated and were recent.

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 issuedDec 27, 2002
Answer filedJan 28, 2003Applicant requested a decision on the record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateJun 18, 2003

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Delinquencies on SF-86 as a Basis for Denial
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Disqualifying Factor
Lack of Specific Plans for Debt Repayment Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility

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 falsified material facts on the SF-86 which he executed on April 28, 2000, when he responded "no" to Questions 38 and 39 and failed to list the debts set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.e. of the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant falsified material facts on the SF-86 which he executed on April 28, 2000, when he responded "no" to Questions 38 and 39 and failed to list the debts set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.e. of the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to a military exchange for a returned check and on a collection account in the approximate amount of $1,862, and that the indebtedness had not been paid as of February 8, 2002. $1,862	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $5,852 on an amount charged off as a bad debt in about October 1997 and that as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid. $5,852	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant was indebted to a provider of telephone services in the amount of $289 and, that as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid. $289	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant was indebted to a second provider of telephone services in the amount of $242 and that, as of February 8, 2002, this debt had not been paid. $242	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant owed a debt on an account in the amount of $2,481 that had been referred for collection in August 1998 and that, as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid. $2,481	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is indebted to a military exchange for a returned check and on a collection account in the approximate amount of $1,862, and that the indebtedness had not been paid as of February 8, 2002.

$1,862

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.b

Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $5,852 on an amount charged off as a bad debt in about October 1997 and that as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid.

$5,852

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

Applicant was indebted to a provider of telephone services in the amount of $289 and, that as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid.

$289

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.d

Applicant was indebted to a second provider of telephone services in the amount of $242 and that, as of February 8, 2002, this debt had not been paid.

$242

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.e

Applicant owed a debt on an account in the amount of $2,481 that had been referred for collection in August 1998 and that, as of February 8, 2002, the debt had not been paid.

$2,481

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES