ISCR Case 02-27156.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-27156.h1

deniedNov 17, 2004· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had approximately $25,000 in unresolved financial debts and failed to disclose these issues on his security clearance application.

Specific financial concerns included a $10,948 deficit balance from a vehicle repossession in 1994, a $12,843 delinquent account from another vehicle repossession in 2000, a $1,272 debt to a telephone company from 1999, and a $1,500 judgment obtained by a landlord in 2001. The applicant admitted to these debts but provided no documentation of resolution or efforts to challenge disputed amounts.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose any of his personal debts or adverse financial information on his SF 86 security clearance application, and his explanations for these omissions were deemed inconsistent. Despite having a stable job and substantial assets, he did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts or provide adequate documentation regarding his financial situation, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to resolve $25,000 in debts to several creditors.
He did not document any action to challenge disputed debts.
He omitted financial difficulties on his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
J.1notedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide evidence of how his wife's illness adversely affected his finances.
E.2rejectedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information VoluntarilyThe applicant's inconsistent explanations diminished his credibility.
J.4appliedThe Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 29, 2003
Answer filedNov 3, 2003notarized
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Decision dateNov 17, 2004

Cite For

Failure to Resolve Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Deliberate Omission of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Financial Matters Under Guideline F

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 reveal any of his personal debts on his SF 86 security clearance application as required.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant failed to disclose any adverse information regarding his finances in response to questions on the form.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	Applicant's inconsistent answers as to why he failed to disclose these persistent financial delinquencies diminish the credibility of his denial.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to reveal any of his personal debts on his SF 86 security clearance application as required.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.b

Applicant failed to disclose any adverse information regarding his finances in response to questions on the form.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.c

Applicant's inconsistent answers as to why he failed to disclose these persistent financial delinquencies diminish the credibility of his denial.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's debt to Creditor #1, a finance corporation, for $10,948 was a deficit balance due after a vehicle was voluntarily repossessed and sold at auction in October 1994; Applicant returned the car to the dealer when they would not "live up" to the repair contract. The account was referred for collection in May 1995. $10,948	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a debt to Creditor #2, an auto action company, for $12,843 for a delinquent account as a result of a vehicle that was repossessed in April 2000. $12,843	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits his debt to Creditor #3, a telephone company, of $1,272 from when he moved in 1999; he stated he would pay this bill but provided no documentation that he had done so. $1,272	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits his debt to Creditor #4, an individual landlord who obtained a $1,500 judgment against him in April 2001 when Applicant failed to appear in court. $1,500	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(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's debt to Creditor #1, a finance corporation, for $10,948 was a deficit balance due after a vehicle was voluntarily repossessed and sold at auction in October 1994; Applicant returned the car to the dealer when they would not "live up" to the repair contract. The account was referred for collection in May 1995.

$10,948

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.b

Applicant has a debt to Creditor #2, an auto action company, for $12,843 for a delinquent account as a result of a vehicle that was repossessed in April 2000.

$12,843

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

Applicant admits his debt to Creditor #3, a telephone company, of $1,272 from when he moved in 1999; he stated he would pay this bill but provided no documentation that he had done so.

$1,272

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.d

Applicant admits his debt to Creditor #4, an individual landlord who obtained a $1,500 judgment against him in April 2001 when Applicant failed to appear in court.

$1,500

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.e

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	—	(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

—

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

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