CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-31796.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-31796.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-31796.h1

deniedNov 7, 2003· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old retired U.S. Navy E-9 was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations of numerous unpaid debts and falsifications on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant had incurred multiple unpaid debts totaling over $3,000 between 1995 and 2003, including 22 collection accounts and one judgment. On his security clearance application, he answered "no" to questions asking if he had any unpaid judgments, had been over 180 days delinquent on any debts in the last seven years, or was currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts. These responses were found to be falsifications of material facts, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate financial responsibility and did not convincingly refute the allegations of deliberate omissions in his application. The applicant also did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial and personal conduct concerns. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred multiple unpaid debts totaling over $3,000 from 1995 to 2003.
Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application by answering 'no' to questions regarding unpaid debts.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial and personal conduct concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.4rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsApplicant did not take steps to seek credit counseling.
E2.A6.13.3rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsMedical debts were not sufficient to mitigate overall financial irresponsibility.
E2.A10.1.3.2rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's falsifications were not isolated incidents.

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 4, 2003
Answer filedAug 27, 2003
Hearing heldOct 27, 2003
Decision dateNov 7, 2003

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Implications of Falsifying Information Under Guideline J

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 all allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application. The applicant's responses to questions regarding delinquent debts were deemed deliberate omissions, raising security concerns about his judgment and candor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In the last 7 years, have you had any judgments that have not been paid?	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debts?	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts?	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	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 multiple unpaid debts and a judgment against him, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant's failure to address these debts and his lack of effort to seek financial counseling led to a decision against him regarding his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Collection acct from 2000 for $50 $50	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Collection acct from 2002 for $317 $317	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Collection acct from 1998 for $125 $125	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Collection acct from 1998 for $590 $590	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Collection acct from 1996 for $135 $135	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Collection acct from 1996 for $577 $577	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Collection acct from 1996 for $51 $51	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Collection acct from 1999 for $237 $237	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Collection acct from 2000 for $50 $50	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Collection acct from 2001 for $50 $50	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Collection acct from 1999 for $190 $190	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Collection acct from 2000 for $230 $230	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Collection acct from 1998 for $115 $115	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Collection acct from 1996 for $163 $163	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Collection acct from 2002 for $50 $50	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	Collection acct from 2000 for $25 $25	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	Judgment from 1997 for $305 $305	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	Collection acct from 1995 for $373 $373	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	Collection acct from 1995 for $193 $193	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	Collection acct from 1995 for $428 $428	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.u	Collection acct from 1995 for $223 $223	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	Collection acct from 1996 for $115 $115	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegation, determining that the applicant knowingly and willfully falsified his security clearance application. This conduct raised significant concerns regarding the applicant's judgment and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SCA.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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: November 7, 2003

In re: ------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-31796 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES A. YOUNG

SYNOPSIS Twenty-nine-year-old Applicant incurred several debts between 1995 to 2003 that he did not pay and did not list as delinquent on his security clearance application. Applicant failed to dispel financial considerations, personal conduct, and criminal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On 4 August 2003, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), under the applicable Executive Order (1) and Department of Defense Directive, (2) detailing the basis for its decision-security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Directive. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on 27 August 2003 and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on 3 October 2003. On 27 October 2003, I convened a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding on 4 November 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 29 years old. Ex. 1 at 1. In 1988, he retired from the U.S. Navy as an E-9 (the highest enlisted grade) after 21 years of service. Id. at 3. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since his retirement. The following chart summarizes the status of the financial security concerns alleged in ¶ 1 of the SOR: ¶ Nature and Amount Status Record 1.a. Collection acct from 2000 for $50 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.b. Collection acct from 2002 for $317 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.c. Collection acct from 1998 for $125 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.d. Collection acct from 1998 for$590 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.e. Collection acct from 1996 for $135 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.f. Collection acct from 1996 for $577 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.g. Collection acct from 1996 for $51 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.h. Collection acct from 1999 for $237 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.i. Collection acct from 2000 for $50 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.j. Collection acct from 2001 for $50 Still not paid Tr. 12 1.k. Collection acct from 1999 for $190 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.l. Collection acct from 2000 for $230 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.m. Collection acct from 1998 for $115 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.n. Collection acct from 1996 for $163 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.o. Collection acct from 2002 for $50 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.p. Collection acct from 2000 for $25 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.q. Judgment from 1997 for $305 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.r. Collection acct from 1995 for $373 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.s. Collection acct from 1995 for $193 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.t. Collection acct from 1995 for $428 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.u. Collection acct from 1995 for $223 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans 1.v. Collection acct from 1996 for $115 Still not paid Tr. 12; Ans Applicant completed his security clearance application (SCA) on 28 September 2000. Ex. 1. At the end of the SCA, Applicant certified that his answers were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, and acknowledged that a knowing and willful false statement was punishable under 10 U.S.C. § 1001. He answered "no" to the following questions contained in the SCA. 37. In the last 7 years, have you had any judgments that have not been paid? 38. In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debts? 39. Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts?

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. The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified information to United States citizens "whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information." Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personal security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an applicant's security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.

CONCLUSION

Guideline F-Financial Considerations In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant failed to pay delinquent debts that had been placed for collection (¶¶ 1.a. - 1.v., except 1.q.), and a judgment that had not been satisfied (¶ 1.q.) An applicant who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Directive ¶ E2.A6.1.1. Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. DC E2.A6.1.2.1. He was unable or unwilling to satisfy his debts. DC E2.A6.1.2.3. Applicant freely admits that he has not paid any of these debts. Although some of these debts were medical bills incurred as a result of his gall bladder problems during a time he did not have any health insurance (see MC E2.A6.13.3), it does not appear he has made any effort to pay any of his bills. He thinks declaring bankruptcy will have too adverse an effect on his credit rating and has not taken it upon himself to see a credit counselor (see MC E2.A6.1.3.4). Under the circumstances, there is no cause to believe Applicant will pay off his debts in the near future. Finding is against Applicant. Guideline E-Personal Conduct In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant falsified material facts on his SCA by answering "no" to questions 39 (¶ 2.a.), 38 (¶ 2.b), and 37 (¶ 2.c.). Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, or dishonesty could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. Directive ¶ E2.A5.1.1. Applicant inaccurately answered questions 37, 38, and 39 on his SCA. The question is whether it was deliberate. Deliberate omissions, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from an SCA is a condition that could raise a security concerns and may be disqualifying. DC E2.A5.1.2.2. After carefully listening to his testimony and observing his demeanor, Applicant failed to convince me the omissions from his SCA were not deliberate. Finding is against Applicant. Guideline J-Criminal Conduct In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SCA. (¶ 3.a.). A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about an applicant's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Directive ¶ E2.A10.1.1. It is a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the executive branch of the Government of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Security clearances are within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States. See Egan. Applicant asserts he answered questions 37, 38, and 39 "no" because he did not think his debts were important enough to list. Under all the circumstances, Applicant failed to convince me that he did not knowingly and willfully falsify his SCA. An applicant may be disqualified if allegations of criminal conduct are raised against him. DC E2.A10.1.2.1. As Applicant falsified three separate questions, the crime was not an isolated incident. See MC E2.A10.1.3.2. None of the other listed mitigating conditions apply. Finding is against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR: Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a.-1.v.: Against Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant Paragraph 3. Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a.: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of 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. Clearance is denied. James A. Young Administrative Judge 1. Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified. 2. Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.

FOOTNOTES

02-31796.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Marc Curry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-31796.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:18:40 AM] 02-31796.h1