ISCR Case 02-32611.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-32611.h1

deniedDec 3, 2003· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old defense contractor with a tenth-grade education was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues, a history of criminal conduct, and a failure to provide accurate information on his Security Clearance Application (SCA). The applicant had unresolved debts with 30 creditors, including a $249.50 debt not included in a bankruptcy filing and a $360 debt from 1998 for which no documentation of payment was provided. Additionally, five checks totaling $255.39 were written with insufficient funds, though this debt has since been paid.

The applicant's criminal history included an arrest and charge for assault in 1993, and a conviction for simple assault in January 2000. A bench warrant was also issued for his arrest in 2001 for failing to pay a vehicle violation.

On his SCA, the applicant knowingly omitted material facts. He incorrectly answered "no" to a question about arrests or convictions in the last seven years, failing to disclose his 2000 simple assault conviction. He also failed to list all his delinquent debts when asked about being over 90 or 180 days delinquent, despite being delinquent on all debts at the time. These omissions and the underlying issues led to the denial under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of financial difficulties, including debts to 30 creditors that remain unresolved.
The applicant was convicted of simple assault and had a bench warrant issued for failing to pay a vehicle violation.
The applicant knowingly provided materially incorrect and incomplete information on his Security Clearance Application.

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.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 27, 2003
Answer filedMar 22, 2003Applicant responded to SOR allegations.
Hearing heldAug 13, 2003Applicant appeared pro se.
Decision dateDec 3, 2003

Cite For

Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Intentional Misrepresentation on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E

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
3.a	In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offenses not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, or 25? Applicant answered "no" to this question. The evidence shows that Applicant was arrested and convicted in January 2000 for simple assault. Applicant should have answered "yes" to this question and included this arrest in the response to question #26.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)? Applicant answered yes to this question and listed one debt, which was the debt listed as 1.a of the SOR. At the time he completed the SCA, Applicant was delinquent on all of the debts discussed above, and he should have answered "yes" to this question and included all of the debts listed in the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	In the last 7 years, have you been over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)? Applicant answered no to this question. At the time he completed the SCA, Applicant was delinquent on all of the debts discussed above, and he should have answered "yes" to this question and included all of the debts listed in the SOR.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offenses not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, or 25? Applicant answered "no" to this question. The evidence shows that Applicant was arrested and convicted in January 2000 for simple assault. Applicant should have answered "yes" to this question and included this arrest in the response to question #26.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

3.b

In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)? Applicant answered yes to this question and listed one debt, which was the debt listed as 1.a of the SOR. At the time he completed the SCA, Applicant was delinquent on all of the debts discussed above, and he should have answered "yes" to this question and included all of the debts listed in the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

3.c

In the last 7 years, have you been over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)? Applicant answered no to this question. At the time he completed the SCA, Applicant was delinquent on all of the debts discussed above, and he should have answered "yes" to this question and included all of the debts listed in the SOR.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	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	—	—
1.b	debt of $249.50 was not included on the bankruptcy and had not been paid $249	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	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	—	—
1.d	debt of $360 was paid in 1998 but no documentation was provided $360	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e–1.k	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.l	debt of $255.39 for five checks written with insufficient funds has been paid $255	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.m–1.dd	18 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

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

—

1.b

debt of $249.50 was not included on the bankruptcy and had not been paid

$249

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

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

—

1.d

debt of $360 was paid in 1998 but no documentation was provided

$360

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.e–1.k

7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

1.l

debt of $255.39 for five checks written with insufficient funds has been paid

$255

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.m–1.dd

18 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with assault in 1993.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged and found guilty of simple assault in 2000.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	A bench warrant was issued for Applicant's arrest for failing to pay for a vehicle violation in 2001.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested and charged with assault in 1993.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.b

Applicant was charged and found guilty of simple assault in 2000.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Convicted

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.c

A bench warrant was issued for Applicant's arrest for failing to pay for a vehicle violation in 2001.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

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