CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-00479.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-00479.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-00479.h1

deniedMay 25, 2004· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a pattern of financial irresponsibility, criminal conduct, and falsifications on his Security Clearance Application.

Specifically, the applicant had six delinquent credit accounts, totaling over $15,000, which became delinquent between January 1992 and April 2001. Three of these were medical bills under $1,000. While the applicant claimed to be making payments on a debt repayment plan initiated in June 2003, he provided no corroborating payment records. His financial difficulties were deemed recent, ongoing, and not isolated, with no mitigating factors met.

Further issues included the applicant's falsification of his Security Clearance Application by omitting significant criminal and financial details. His criminal conduct involved a prior arrest for making a false report and dishonesty in employment matters. The judge concluded that these actions raised substantial doubts about his judgment and trustworthiness, making a clearance inconsistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of financial irresponsibility with six delinquent credit accounts totaling over $15,000.
The applicant falsified his Security Clearance Application by omitting significant criminal and financial information.
The applicant's criminal conduct included a prior arrest for making a false report and dishonesty in employment matters.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A6.1.2.1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct

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 issuedOct 16, 2003
Answer filedNov 3, 2003
Hearing held—Administrative decision on the record requested.
Decision dateMay 25, 2004

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Falsification of Information as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility 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 that the applicant engaged in a pattern of dishonesty and falsification, which raised significant concerns regarding his trustworthiness and reliability. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant under Guideline E, denying his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a–3.g	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

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 a pattern of financial irresponsibility, with six delinquent credit accounts totaling over $15,000. The applicant's financial difficulties were deemed ongoing and not due to circumstances beyond his control, leading to a denial of the security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has six delinquent credit accounts totaling over $15,000.00, that fell delinquent between January 1992 and April 2001. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	None of these debts were caused by circumstances beyond Applicant's control.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Three of the six debts are medical bills totaling less than $1,000.00. $1,000	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Although Applicant has provided corroboration that he entered into a debt repayment plan with a credit counseling organization and asserts that he has been making payments on the plan, he has provided no payment records to corroborate the claimed payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	The record demonstrates Applicant's substantial indebtedness, but contains no corroboration of claimed payments made pursuant to a credit counseling repayment plan executed in June 2003.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and not isolated; indeed they are ongoing.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's history of criminal conduct, including a charge for making a false report, raised significant concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness. The applicant's admissions and lack of mitigating evidence led to a ruling against him under Guideline J, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	For the Applicant (2)	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Against the Applicant	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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: May 25, 2004 In Re: -------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 03-00479 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN G. METZ, JR.

SYNOPSIS Applicant's pattern of financial irresponsibility, criminal conduct, and falsifications renders him an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Applicant challenges the 16 October 2003 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Statement of Reasons (SOR) (1) recommending denial or revocation of Applicant's clearance. Applicant answered the SOR and requested an administrative decision on the record on 3 November 2003. He responded to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM), issued 3 February 2004; the record in this case closed 24 February 2004, the day Department Counsel indicated no objection to the response was due at DOHA. The case was assigned to me on 4 May 2004 to decide if clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR. Accordingly, I incorporate these admissions as findings of fact. Applicant--a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor--seeks access to classified information. He previously had a clearance in the early 1990s. Applicant has a history of dishonesty, false reporting, and falsification leading to adverse housing, criminal, and employment consequences. He also has a history of financial irresponsibility. In November 1997, Applicant was charged with making a false report to law enforcement and was fined and placed on one-year probation. In May 2001, he was terminated from his job for unauthorized use of a company vehicle and then lying to the company about the circumstances of the incident. Also, in May 2001, he was evicted from his apartment for violation of the terms of his lease by allowing unauthorized people to stay in the apartment during the day, including an individual the rental company had barred from the property. On 1 May 2001, Applicant falsified his Security Clearance Application (SCA) by failing to disclose his November 1997 arrest for false report, by failing to disclose his delinquent debts, and by failing to disclose three significant periods of residence within the last seven years. Although he truthfully disclosed that he had been fired from a job for unauthorized use of a company vehicle, he provided a false explanation of the circumstances of that firing in a 26 July 2002 sworn statement. Applicant has six delinquent credit accounts totaling over $15,000.00, that fell delinquent between January 1992 and April 2001. None of these debts were caused by circumstances beyond Applicant's control. Three of the six debts are medical bills totaling less than $1,000.00. Although Applicant has provided corroboration that he entered into a debt repayment plan with a credit counseling organization and asserts that he has been making payments on the plan, he has provided no payment records to corroborate the claimed payments. The record is otherwise silent on Applicant's character or work performance.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented. Each adjudicative decision must also assess the factors listed in Section 6.3. and in Enclosure (2) of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of seriousness, recency, motivation, etc. Considering the evidence as a whole, the following adjudication policy factors are most pertinent to this case: FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (GUIDELINE F) E2.A6.1.1. The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts. E2.A6.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; E2.A6.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: E2.A6.1.3.3. The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g. loss of employment. . . divorce or separation). CRIMINAL CONDUCT (GUIDELINE J) E2.A10.1.1. A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. E2.A10.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A10.1.2.1. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged; E2.A10.1.2.2. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. E2.A10.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None. PERSONAL CONDUCT (GUIDELINE E) E2A5.1.1. The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. . . E2. A5.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A5.1.2.2. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .; E2.A5.1.2.3. Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, . . . in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination; E2.A5.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None. Burden of Proof Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to an applicant to establish security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."

CONCLUSION

The Government has established its case under Guideline F. The record demonstrates Applicant's substantial indebtedness, but contains no corroboration of claimed payments made pursuant to a credit counseling repayment plan executed in June 2003. Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and not isolated; indeed they are ongoing. They do not appear to be due to circumstances beyond his control. It does not appear that Applicant has stopped digging himself into a financial hole, much less started to pull himself out of it. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant. The Government has established its case under Guideline E. Applicant falsified substantial pieces of his criminal record and financial difficulties, and later lied to the Government about the reason for his firing--just as he lied to his company about the misuse of the company vehicle, precipitating the firing. I conclude Guideline E against Applicant. The Government has established its case under Guideline J. Applicant's arrest for false report is simply one more instance in which Applicant has displayed dishonest conduct. I conclude Guideline J 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 Paragraph 2. Guideline J: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: For the Applicant (2) Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Paragraph 3. Guideline E: 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

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, as amended and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive). 2. The February 2002 public nuisance charge was for Applicant pulling off the side of the road to urinate, a crime with no particular security significance.

FOOTNOTES

03-00479.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-00479.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:07:28 PM] 03-00479.h1