ISCR Case 03-02391.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-02391.h1

deniedJul 15, 2004· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old procurement specialist 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 primarily from her deliberate falsification of her security questionnaire and a prior shoplifting arrest, which raised questions about her honesty and adherence to the law.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose a 1999 shoplifting arrest on her security questionnaire and initially lied to the Defense Security Service when confronted about the omission. While she later admitted to inaccurate answers regarding past delinquencies, she denied intent to falsify. Her financial issues included several outstanding medical bills, a contested musical instrument rental debt, and a returned used car debt, though some of these were disputed or partially resolved, with one judgment satisfied through wage garnishment.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's deliberate falsification of her security questionnaire concerning both her shoplifting arrest and financial delinquencies. Her prior shoplifting arrest and lack of candor during the investigation were significant factors that undermined her credibility and led to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified her security questionnaire regarding her shoplifting arrest and financial delinquencies.
The applicant's prior shoplifting arrest raised concerns about her willingness to abide by the law.
The applicant's lack of candor during the investigation undermined her credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.1appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2003
Answer filedNov 25, 2003
Hearing held—Applicant requested a determination without a hearing.
Decision dateJul 15, 2004

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Questionnaires Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Under Guideline J
Mitigating Financial Issues Caused by Circumstances Beyond Control Under Guideline F

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	Applicant deliberately omitted her 1999 shoplifting arrest when she answered "no" to EPSQ question 26.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.b	Applicant initially lied to DSS in December 2002 when confronted about this omission.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.c	Applicant admits her answers to two questions about her past delinquencies were inaccurate but denies she intended to falsify her answers or mislead the government.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant deliberately omitted her 1999 shoplifting arrest when she answered "no" to EPSQ question 26.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

3.b

Applicant initially lied to DSS in December 2002 when confronted about this omission.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

3.c

Applicant admits her answers to two questions about her past delinquencies were inaccurate but denies she intended to falsify her answers or mislead the government.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This debt is for a musical instrument Applicant rented for one of her children. Applicant is contesting this debt as invalid, claiming she returned the instrument and fulfilled the terms of the contract. She did not list it on her SF 86 for that reason.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In July 1998, Applicant returned a used car she had bought because she was having trouble making payments and affording the constant repairs the car required. She was receiving harassing phone calls as early as October 1997 because she was not keeping up with payments. Applicant asserts she does not owe this debt and did not list it on her SF 86 for that reason. In June 2001, Applicant received a letter from the loan company that financed the car informing her she had no more obligations to the lender.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Between July 1997 and April 2003, Applicant has accrued approximately $1,000 in delinquent medical bills through 13 hospital visits for treatment for herself, her husband and her children. A law suit brought by the hospital's collection agency resulted in a November 1999 judgment in favor of the hospital. This collection agency also represented the creditor in SOR 1.d, below, and that debt was part of the same suit and judgment. The judgment addressed four of the 13 hospital bills and the debt in SOR 1.d, and was satisfied through garnishment of Applicant's pay as of August 2000. However, the remaining nine hospital bills have not been paid. Applicant listed the judgment and garnishment on her EPSQ in response to questions 34 and 37, but it is clear there were other medical bill delinquencies incurred after the garnishment. Applicant has tried as recently as February 2004 to arrange a payment plan with the hospital. $1,000	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	This was a debt owed to a local municipality. As noted in the discussion of SOR 1.c, above, it appears to have been satisfied through wage garnishment in August 2000.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	This is a debt for veterinary care for Applicant's dog in 1998 or 1999 at a local animal hospital. Soon after receiving the bill, Applicant informed the vet she could not pay the amount on time and offered to pay $10 each month. It appears she is current on a payment arrangement with the vet's collection agency; however, her original offer was made to the vet, not to a collection agency. Applicant did not list this debt on her EPSQ because she thought it was current, but it is unclear whether this arrangement was entered into before or after she submitted her EPSQ.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.f	These debts are medical bills for services rendered in the early 1990's. Applicant disputes these accounts insofar as she thought they were to be paid through her insurance carrier. She further claims the collection agency involved told her in 1992 or 1993 that she was not obligated to pay these debts. She did not list the debts on her EPSQ because she did not think she owed them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	These debts are medical bills for services rendered in the early 1990's. Applicant disputes these accounts insofar as she thought they were to be paid through her insurance carrier. She further claims the collection agency involved told her in 1992 or 1993 that she was not obligated to pay these debts. She did not list the debts on her EPSQ because she did not think she owed them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

This debt is for a musical instrument Applicant rented for one of her children. Applicant is contesting this debt as invalid, claiming she returned the instrument and fulfilled the terms of the contract. She did not list it on her SF 86 for that reason.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.b

In July 1998, Applicant returned a used car she had bought because she was having trouble making payments and affording the constant repairs the car required. She was receiving harassing phone calls as early as October 1997 because she was not keeping up with payments. Applicant asserts she does not owe this debt and did not list it on her SF 86 for that reason. In June 2001, Applicant received a letter from the loan company that financed the car informing her she had no more obligations to the lender.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

Between July 1997 and April 2003, Applicant has accrued approximately $1,000 in delinquent medical bills through 13 hospital visits for treatment for herself, her husband and her children. A law suit brought by the hospital's collection agency resulted in a November 1999 judgment in favor of the hospital. This collection agency also represented the creditor in SOR 1.d, below, and that debt was part of the same suit and judgment. The judgment addressed four of the 13 hospital bills and the debt in SOR 1.d, and was satisfied through garnishment of Applicant's pay as of August 2000. However, the remaining nine hospital bills have not been paid. Applicant listed the judgment and garnishment on her EPSQ in response to questions 34 and 37, but it is clear there were other medical bill delinquencies incurred after the garnishment. Applicant has tried as recently as February 2004 to arrange a payment plan with the hospital.

$1,000

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

1.d

This was a debt owed to a local municipality. As noted in the discussion of SOR 1.c, above, it appears to have been satisfied through wage garnishment in August 2000.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.e

This is a debt for veterinary care for Applicant's dog in 1998 or 1999 at a local animal hospital. Soon after receiving the bill, Applicant informed the vet she could not pay the amount on time and offered to pay $10 each month. It appears she is current on a payment arrangement with the vet's collection agency; however, her original offer was made to the vet, not to a collection agency. Applicant did not list this debt on her EPSQ because she thought it was current, but it is unclear whether this arrangement was entered into before or after she submitted her EPSQ.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.f

These debts are medical bills for services rendered in the early 1990's. Applicant disputes these accounts insofar as she thought they were to be paid through her insurance carrier. She further claims the collection agency involved told her in 1992 or 1993 that she was not obligated to pay these debts. She did not list the debts on her EPSQ because she did not think she owed them.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.g

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	On July 29, 1999, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. She was not jailed but was issued a summons to appear in court the next month. When she appeared in court in August 1999, judgment was withheld pending successful completion of four months probation and a misdemeanor offenders course. In December 1999, the charges were dismissed.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

On July 29, 1999, Applicant was arrested for shoplifting. She was not jailed but was issued a summons to appear in court the next month. When she appeared in court in August 1999, judgment was withheld pending successful completion of four months probation and a misdemeanor offenders course. In December 1999, the charges were dismissed.

Against Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

(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