CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-32698.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-32698.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-32698.h1

deniedJun 21, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant incurred approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts and failed to disclose these on her security clearance application (SF 86).

The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant did not reveal the existence of these debts on her SF 86, specifically failing to acknowledge them on question 38. She admitted to both incurring the debts and omitting them from her application. Furthermore, she stated an inability to pay the debts given her current income and responsibilities for a son for whom she was not receiving child support.

Despite admitting the debts and the omission, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence or arguments to mitigate the allegations in her answer or statement to the investigator. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts.
Applicant failed to disclose the debts on her SF 86 application.
Applicant admitted to the debts but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the allegations.

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.A5.1.1raisedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedOmission of Relevant and Material Facts From Personnel Security Application

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 issuedOct 3, 2003
Answer filedNov 3, 2003Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateJun 21, 2004

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Debts on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Issues in Security Clearance Cases

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 that the applicant failed to disclose approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts on her security clearance application. The applicant admitted to the debts and the omission but did not provide sufficient evidence or argument to mitigate the concerns. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to disclose approximately $9,000 in delinquent debts on her security clearance application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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 applicant incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts and failed to disclose them on her security clearance application. The judge found all allegations under Guideline F against the applicant, concluding that no mitigating conditions applied to her financial situation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. $9,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant did not reveal the existence of her debts on her application for security clearance (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted all of the debts and the failure to report them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant did not offer sufficient evidence or argument concerning the allegations in her answer or her statement to the investigator to mitigate the allegations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant admitted that she was unable to pay the debts with her current income and responsibilities for a son for whom she was not receiving child support.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant failed to acknowledge the delinquent debts on questions 38 on her SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	Applicant has acknowledged the six delinquent debts and the fact that she omitted to report them on her SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

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: June 21, 2004

In Re:

-----------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-32698

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. She did not reveal their existence on her application for security clearance (SF 86). In her answer she admitted all of the debts and the failure to report them. She did not offer sufficient evidence or argument concerning the allegations in her answer or her statement to the investigator to mitigate the allegations. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 3, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, 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. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement dated November 3, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on January 12, 2004. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not respond and the case was assigned to me on March 29, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact: Applicant is a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $9,000.00 in delinquent debts. In her answer she admitted all of the debts and did not offer any evidence or argument concerning them. In her statement to the investigator she admitted that she was unable to pay the debts with her current income and responsibilities for a son for whom she was not receiving child support.

Applicant failed to acknowledged the delinquent debts on questions 38 on her SF 86. In her answer she admitted the omission but in her statement to the investigator she said she did know about all of them.

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.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR.

Applicant's extensive delinquent debts prompted the allegation in the SOR of violation of Guideline F in that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.) and that the conditions resulting in the problems were largely beyond the person's control such as divorce. (E2.A6.1.3.3.)

Under Guideline E, conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. Directive. (E2.A5.1.1.) The Government has established by evidence and Applicant's admissions that she has omitted relevant and material facts from her personnel security application (SF 86) (E2.A5.1.2.2.)

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

Applicant has acknowledged the six delinquent debts and the fact that she omitted to report them on her SF 86. She has offered some reasons as to why they were incurred but admits her inability to pay them. Thus, no mitigating conditions are applicable.

She has also admitted that the debts were omitted from her SF 86 without offering a credible reason. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2.Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-32698.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Marc E. Curry Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-32698.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:05:36 PM] 02-32698.h1