CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-29461.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-29461.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-29461.h1

deniedAug 2, 2004· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old bookkeeper was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the falsification of her security clearance application and a history of financial irresponsibility, which led the judge to conclude she lacked judgment and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose eight debts totaling over $16,000 that were 90-days and 180-days delinquent. Additional financial issues included a wage garnishment from June 1997 and a vehicle repossession from August 1995.

The denial was based on the applicant's omission of significant debts from her application, the consistent increase in her financial delinquencies between 1996 and 2002 without evidence of remediation, and her failure to provide corroborating evidence of repayment agreements or payments to creditors.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified her security clearance application by omitting over $16,000 in debts.
The applicant's financial delinquencies have consistently increased from 1996 to 2002 without evidence of remediation.
The applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence of repayment agreements or payments to creditors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 12, 2004
Answer filed02/2004Requested decision without hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateAug 2, 2004

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility as a Basis for Clearance Denial Under Guideline F
The Government's Compelling Interest in Applicant Trustworthiness and Reliability

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 personal conduct concerns, specifically regarding the falsification of her security clearance application. The applicant's failure to disclose significant debts was deemed intentional, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	FOUND DELIBERATE	Financial		—	—	—

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 multiple financial concerns against the applicant, including undisclosed debts totaling over $16,000 and a history of delinquencies dating back to 1996. The applicant's claims of repayment agreements were not substantiated, leading to a denial of the security clearance based on financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failed to disclose eight other debts totaling over $16,000.00 that were both currently 90-days delinquent and 180-days delinquent $16,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	garnishment from June 1997	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	repossession from August 1995	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d–1.i	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct DIGEST: Applicant's falsification of her clearance application and financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied. CASENO: 02-29461.h1 DATE: 08/02/2004

DATE: August 2, 2004 In Re: ------------------- SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-29461 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR.

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's falsification of her clearance application and financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Applicant challenges the 12 January 2004 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of her clearance because of financial considerations and personal conduct. (1) Applicant answered the SOR in February 2004 and requested a decision without hearing. She did not respond to DOHA's 28 May 2004 File of Relevant Material (FORM). The record closed 10 July 2004, when the response was due. DOHA assigned the case to me 28 July 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR, except for 1.d., but denied intending to falsify her clearance application. Accordingly, I incorporate her admissions as findings of fact. She is a 43-year-old bookkeeper currently employed as a switchboard operator for a defense contractor since May 2002. She has never applied for a clearance before.

When Applicant applied for her security clearance in February 2002, she disclosed a June 1997 garnishment (question 34), an August 1995 repossession (question 35) and one 90-day delinquent account for $345.00 incurred in June 1999 (question 39). She failed to disclose eight other debts totaling over $16,000.00 that were both currently 90-days delinquent (question 39) and 180-days delinquent (question 38). When interviewed by the Defense Security Service in July and August 2002, she acknowledged the debts and attributed them to separating from the father of her children in 1996. Of the nine debts alleged, two fell delinquent in 1996, two fell delinquent in 1997, two fell delinquent in 1999, two fell delinquent in 2000, and one fell delinquent in 2001. Although Applicant claims to have entered into repayment agreements with some of her creditors, there is no evidence to corroborate her claim and no evidence of any payments to the creditors listed. Applicant's answer claims she omitted the eight debts from her clearance application because she could not remember the precise amounts owed.

POLICIES

The Directive, Enclosure 2 sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an Applicant's suitability for access to classified information. The Administrative Judge must take into account both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each adjudicative decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, I conclude the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

BURDENS

A clearance decision resolves whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an Applicant's security clearance. The government must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

A person with access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The "clearly consistent with the national interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant's suitability for access in favor of the government. (2)

CONCLUSION

The Government established a Guideline F case and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Although the separation from the father of her children might reasonably be seen as beyond her control, (3) Applicant's delinquencies have consistently grown from 1996 to at least 2002. There is no evidence that she has sought credit counseling, entered into repayment agreements, or made any payments to creditors. (4) It also appears she may lack the means to address her indebtedness. Nevertheless, it is not clear that she has stopped digging herself into a financial hole, much less begun to dig herself out. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

The government established a Guideline E case and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant stated she was aware of her debts, but unsure of the amounts. However, the number (8) and amount (over $16,000.00) of debts omitted convinces me Applicant intended to misrepresent the extent of her financial difficulties. (5) The other adverse financial information she disclosed does not contain any information to suggest the extent of her financial problems. I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant Subparagraph g: Against the Applicant Subparagraph h: Against the Applicant Subparagraph i: Against the Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: 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.

John G. Metz, Jr. Administrative Judge

1. Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive). 2. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 3. E2.A6.1.3.3. The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g. loss of employment. . . ). 4. E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 5. E2.A5.1.2.2. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from [written form]. . . used to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Nygine T. Mills, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-29461.h1.htm[6/24/2021 11:14:57 AM] Pro Se