CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-28489.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-28489.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-28489.h1

deniedDec 29, 2003· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 37-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 financial delinquencies and the deliberate falsification of information on his Security Clearance Application.

Specifically, the applicant was indebted to the U.S. Department of Education for two student loans from 1992, totaling $7,317.61 in May 2002, which he had largely ignored for years. By July 2003, he had reduced this debt to $4,683.81. He also owed Verizon $844.29 for an unpaid phone bill from 1998 or earlier, a debt he acknowledged but delayed addressing. Both debts were subject to repayment agreements initiated in May 2002.

The judge determined that the applicant's prolonged neglect of these significant debts demonstrated poor judgment. Furthermore, his intentional omission of these debts on his Security Clearance Application constituted falsification of material facts. Despite recent efforts to repay the debts, these actions were deemed insufficient to demonstrate good faith, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant ignored two significant debts for many years, reflecting poor judgment.
Applicant intentionally provided false information on his Security Clearance Application regarding his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 26, 2002
Answer filedJan 16, 2003Applicant elected to have case determined on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateDec 29, 2003

Cite For

Denial Based on Long-standing Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Falsification on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith Efforts to Resolve 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 two allegations under Guideline E, specifically regarding the falsification of material facts on a security clearance application. The applicant's failure to disclose outstanding debts and the intentional nature of the false statements raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1	The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	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 judge found that the applicant had longstanding debts to the U.S. Department of Education and Verizon, which he ignored for many years. Although he made recent attempts to repay these debts, the judge concluded that these efforts did not constitute a good-faith effort to resolve his financial obligations, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1	Applicant is indebted to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) for two student loans he received in 1992. Applicant ignored this debt for many years. In May 2002, applicant contacted the USDE and made arrangements to satisfy this debt, which at the time stood at $7,317.61. By July 2003 he had reduced the debt to $4,683.81. $4,683	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2	Applicant was indebted to Verizon in the amount of $844.29 for an unpaid phone bill he incurred in or before 1998. He knew about the debt but 'just kept putting it off until [he] got a little better off financially'. Finally, in May 2002, he contacted the creditor and they reached a repayment agreement. $844	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(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: December 29, 2003 In Re: -------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-28489 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant ignored two outstanding debts for many years. His relatively recent attempts to repay these debts are not a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors. In addition, he lied about his financial condition on a Security Clearance Application (SCA). Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On December 26, 2002, 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 January 16, 2003, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about July 23, 2003. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on August 5, 2003. The case was assigned to me on September 3, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 37 year old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant is indebted to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) for two student loans he received in 1992. Applicant ignored this debt for many years. In his words, he did so hoping that it "would just go away." In 1995, the IRS began applying his annual tax refunds to the USDE debt. In May 2002, applicant contacted the USDE and made arrangements to satisfy this debt, which at the time stood at $7,317.61. By July 2003 he had reduced the debt to $4,683.81. Applicant intends to continue making payments until the debt is paid. Applicant decided to start paying off this debt when he "decided it was not going to go away." He also knew that he had to get his "finances straight" because of his "job and security clearance"(Exhibit 9). Applicant was indebted to Verizon in the amount of $844.29 for an unpaid phone bill he incurred in or before1998. He knew about the debt but "just kept putting it off until [he] got a little better off financially" (Exhibit 9). Finally, in May 2002, he contacted the creditor and they reached a repayment agreement. In his response to the FORM, applicant stated that this debt "will be paid off this month of August 2003." The Government's evidence is insufficient to establish that applicant made the statements attributed to him in SOR Allegation 2a. Applicant executed an SCA on April 10, 2002. In response to Question 39, which asked, "Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?"applicant stated "no." Applicant's response was false because, as noted above, applicant had been delinquent on at least two debts for years. Applicant admits that he "mistakenly" responded "no," but claims he was confused by some of the wording in Question 38. Since applicant failed to list his two long-standing debts in response to either Question 38 or Question 39, his explanation is not credible. I find that applicant intentionally provided a false response to Question 39.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: Financial Considerations Disqualifying Factors E2.A6.1.2.1: A history of not meeting financial obligations. E2.A6.1.2.3: Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. Mitigating Factors None. Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions E2.A5.1.2.2: The deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire. Mitigating Conditions None.

CONCLUSION

With respect to Guideline F, the evidence establishes that applicant has been indebted to the USDE for approximately ten years and that he has been indebted to a phone company since at least 1998. Both of these debts were past-due for many years before applicant decided to take any action toward satisfying them. Applicant's conscious decision to ignore these two financial obligations reflects adversely on his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. In May 2002, applicant contacted both creditors and arranged to satisfy both debts by making monthly payments. Applicant's efforts, occurring during the course of his security clearance investigation, are a step in the right direction. However, given the many years that he allowed these debts to remain unpaid, I cannot conclude that these efforts constitute "a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts." (1) In view of applicant's long- standing failure to repay these two debts, it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsification of material facts on the SCA concerning his debts is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders. In this case, the recency of applicant's dishonesty, together with the lack of any evidence from individuals who know him well (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, supervisors) indicating that applicant is a reliable and trustworthy individual, precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST 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 1. Accordingly, Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.6 is not applicable.

FOOTNOTES

02-28489.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Eric H. Borgstrom, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-28489.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:13:16 AM] 02-28489.h1