CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-21317.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-21317.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-21317.h1

deniedFeb 26, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old part-time security guard for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to approximately $40,000 in overdue debts but failed to disclose these on his SF 86 security clearance application.

The Statement of Reasons specifically alleged that the applicant did not report the overdue debts on his SF 86 and provided no plausible explanation for this omission. Disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct were raised, including E2.A5.1.1, E2.A6.1.1, and E2.A6.1.2.3.

The judge denied the clearance, citing the applicant's admission of significant debts and his failure to disclose them on the SF 86. No mitigating factors under either Guideline E or Guideline F were found to be applicable in this case, leading to the denial based on financial irresponsibility and a lack of candor.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to significant debts of approximately $40,000.
Applicant failed to disclose overdue debts on his SF 86 application.
No mitigating factors under Guideline E or Guideline F were applicable.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
E2.A6.1.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedEvidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedJul 22, 2003
Answer filedUndatedSworn written statement submitted by applicant.
Hearing heldN/ACase decided on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 26, 2004

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Disclose Debts on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Lack of Applicable Mitigating Factors in 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 failure to disclose significant debts on the security clearance application. The applicant admitted to the debts but did not provide a plausible explanation for the omission, 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 report the overdue debts on his SF 86 and offered no plausible explanation for his failure to do so.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	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 faced significant financial concerns under Guideline F, admitting to debts totaling approximately $40,000 and failing to disclose these debts on his security clearance application. The judge ruled against the applicant on most allegations, concluding that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and failure to acknowledge his debts raised serious security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.o	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (10 against, 5 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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: February 26, 2004 In Re: --------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-21317 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS Applicant is a 52-year-old part-time employee of a defense contractor working as a security guard. He admitted to debts of approximately $40,000.00 and failing to acknowledge those debts on his Application for Security Clearance (SF 86). Clearance is denied. STATEMENT OF CASE On July 22, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 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 but undated written statement, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on September 11, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he 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 December 22, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted to 12 of the specific allegations in the SOR and denied four. The admitted facts are hereby incorporated as 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 52-year-old part-time employee of a defense contractor working as a security guard. He admitted to debts of approximately $40,000.00 and failing to acknowledge those debts on his Application for Security Clearance (SF 86). In addition to his employment as a guard, Applicant has a full-time job with a health care organization. He contributes approximately $5,000.00 per annum to his church and intends to continue to do so. Applicant declined to submit a financial report with his answer to the SOR.

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) Applicant's extensive debts have raised the allegation 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 maybe 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.) Also alleged is falsification of his SF 86 by failing to disclose debts that were over 180 days old. Guideline E raises an issue involving questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.) including a deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application. (E2.A5.1.2.2.)

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 has acknowledged that he is over his head in debt and that it was caused by his financial irresponsibility. While it may be commendable that he contributes a significant amount of his income to his church, this is not a mitigating condition that can be applied in his favor in a security clearance determination. Applicant offered a plausible explanation of payment of four of the debts. None of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F are applicable. Applicant failed to report the overdue debts on his SF 86 and offered no plausible explanation for his failure to do so. No mitigating factors under Guideline E 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.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.l.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant Subparagraph 1 o: 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

02-21317.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Nygina Mills, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-21317.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:02:47 AM] 02-21317.h1