ISCR Case 02-29607.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-29607.h1

grantedApr 26, 2005· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old aircraft mechanic and retired Navy Petty Officer was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited delinquent debts incurred after his divorce and during his second marriage, along with omissions on his 2001 SF 86 regarding these financial obligations.

The applicant successfully demonstrated that many of the alleged debts were either erroneous or not his responsibility. For instance, a $1,164.00 judgment was the debt of his former wife, which his current wife subsequently paid. A $2,311.31 credit union debt was mistakenly attributed to him, belonging instead to another individual. He also provided evidence of resolving other debts, such as a $1,287.77 vehicle loan paid off by August 2004, a $3,711.00 rent debt settled for $3,000.00, and a $76.96 store debt paid in full in 2002. An alleged 1997 IRS tax lien for $655.00 was disproven by an IRS letter stating no such debts or liens existed.

The judge determined that the applicant's omissions on his SF 86 were unintentional, as he was unaware of the full extent of the delinquencies and had not obtained a credit report until the matter arose. Given the successful mitigation of the financial concerns and the finding that the personal conduct issues were not deliberate, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated that many alleged debts were erroneous or not his responsibility.
He provided evidence of having paid or resolved most of his debts.
The applicant's omissions on his SF 86 were found to be unintentional.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedEvidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.1raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
E2.A6.1.3.6appliedGood Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

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 issuedAug 10, 2004
Answer filedDec 19, 2004Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldFeb 24, 2005
Decision dateApr 26, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Unintentional Omissions on SF 86 Not Necessarily Disqualifying
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations.

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	While he omitted information in his 2001 SF 86 regarding his delinquent debts, he did not realize the extent of the delinquencies.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
2.b	Applicant denied knowledge of the lien, the judgments, and the extent of delinquency of the debts as he had not obtained a credit report until this matter arose.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
2.c	Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

While he omitted information in his 2001 SF 86 regarding his delinquent debts, he did not realize the extent of the delinquencies.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

2.b

Applicant denied knowledge of the lien, the judgments, and the extent of delinquency of the debts as he had not obtained a credit report until this matter arose.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

2.c

Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$382.14-removed from credit reports as charged off but included in the debt in d. below. $382	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	$1,287.77-Refinanced vehicle and final monthly payment made August, 2004, (Exh. E). $1,287	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	$1,164.00-Debt of former wife, judgement entered, but debt assumed by and paid by wife (Attachment to Exh. 3). $1,164	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	$3,711.00-Settled for $3,000.00 for rents after dispute and settlement negotiation (Exh. G). $3,711	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	$655.00-IRS debt; tax lien allegedly filed in 1997 but an IRS letter stated that no debts indicated for past years and no lien (Exh.B). $655	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	$2,311.31-Credit union debt and judgement was mistakenly alleged against Applicant since the debt was for another person (Exh. C). $2,311	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	$286.00-Medical bill that should have been paid by insurance since work related but paid by Applicant (TR 56). $286	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	$76.96-Store debt paid in full in 2002 (Exh. D). $76	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

$382.14-removed from credit reports as charged off but included in the debt in d. below.

$382

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.b

$1,287.77-Refinanced vehicle and final monthly payment made August, 2004, (Exh. E).

$1,287

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

1.c

$1,164.00-Debt of former wife, judgement entered, but debt assumed by and paid by wife (Attachment to Exh. 3).

$1,164

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

1.d

$3,711.00-Settled for $3,000.00 for rents after dispute and settlement negotiation (Exh. G).

$3,711

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.e

$655.00-IRS debt; tax lien allegedly filed in 1997 but an IRS letter stated that no debts indicated for past years and no lien (Exh.B).

$655

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Denied

—

1.f

$2,311.31-Credit union debt and judgement was mistakenly alleged against Applicant since the debt was for another person (Exh. C).

$2,311

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

—

1.g

$286.00-Medical bill that should have been paid by insurance since work related but paid by Applicant (TR 56).

$286

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.h

$76.96-Store debt paid in full in 2002 (Exh. D).

$76

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.i

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES