CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-03525.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-03525.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-03525.h1

deniedFeb 2, 2005· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a trustworthiness determination due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: significant financial difficulties and the falsification of her public trust position application.

The applicant had 14 delinquent debts totaling nearly $11,000, none of which had been paid. These included a $5,500 automobile repossession and numerous smaller debts. While she attributed her financial problems to mismanagement, particularly after job loss, her personal financial statement showed a positive cash flow of $150 per month since October 2002. Despite this, and living with her mother to keep expenses low, she had taken no steps to address any of her debts, even the smallest ones, as of her September 2003 response.

Crucially, in October 2001, the applicant falsified her public trust position application by failing to disclose any of her delinquent accounts, including two judgment accounts she acknowledged knowing about. This deliberate omission, coupled with her failure to address her financial obligations despite having the means, led to the denial, as it indicated a lack of trustworthiness and reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to address her financial obligations despite having positive cash flow.
Falsification of her public trust position application demonstrated untrustworthiness.
The applicant's financial difficulties were due to her own mismanagement and not beyond her control.

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.A5.1.2.2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Persons seeking trustworthiness positions enter into a fiduciary relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 11, 2003
Answer filedJul 1, 2003
Hearing held—Applicant requested an administrative decision on the record.
Decision dateFeb 2, 2005

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
Trustworthiness Concerns Due to Personal Conduct 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 Guideline E due to her deliberate falsification of her public trust position application, where she failed to disclose delinquent accounts. This conduct demonstrated a lack of candor and untrustworthiness, leading to a denial of her trustworthiness determination.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In October 2001, Applicant falsified her public trust position application by failing to disclose any of her delinquent accounts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Although she denies failing to disclose the two judgment accounts on the technical ground that she did not know those accounts had gone to judgment, she acknowledges that she was aware that she had these delinquent accounts, as well as the twelve others that she also failed to disclose elsewhere on the application.	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 judge found that the applicant had 14 delinquent debts totaling nearly $11,000, none of which had been paid. The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to her own mismanagement, and she had not taken steps to address her debts despite having positive cash flow since October 2002. The judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 14 delinquent debts, totaling nearly $11,000.00, none of which have been paid. $11,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Except for a $5500.00 automobile repossession, all of the debts are less than $700.00 and five are less than $300.00. $5,500	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant attributes her financial problems to mismanaging her finances, especially after she lost her job.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	In October 2002, Applicant's personal financial statement showed positive cash flow of $150.00 per month. $150	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	While her answers stated that she expected to start paying some of the delinquent accounts in January 2004, she had not taken any action as of her September 2003 response.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	The record contains no evidence of Applicant's work performance or character.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	Applicant has not taken steps to address any of the 14 debts alleged in the SOR.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Falsification of her public trust position application suggests she cannot be relied upon to tell the truth if the truth conflicts with her personal interest.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	Applicant's financial difficulties are not due to circumstances beyond her control.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.j	Applicant has had positive cash flow since at least October 2002.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.k	Applicant lives at home with her mother, which has allowed her to keep her expenses down since at least March 1996.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.l	The applicant's financial problems were due to her own financial mismanagement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.m	The applicant has taken no steps to address even the smallest of her debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.n	The applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations.	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 against the applicant on the Guideline J allegations, determining that her deliberate falsification of her public trust position application raised significant trustworthiness concerns. The applicant's actions were seen as an attempt to mislead the government, which could have impacted the integrity of the investigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	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: February 2, 2005 In Re: ------------------ SSN: ----------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ADP Case No. 03-03525 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN G. METZ, JR.

SYNOPSIS Applicant's financial difficulties are not due to circumstances beyond her control and she has taken no steps to address any of the 14 debts alleged in the SOR, even though she has had positive cash flow since at least October 2002 and five of those debts are less than $300.00. Falsification of her public trust position application suggests she cannot be relied upon to tell the truth if the truth conflicts with her personal interest. Trustworthiness determination denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On 9 April 1993, the Composite Health Care System Program Office (CHCSPO), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD C3I) entered into a memorandum of agreement for DOHA to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (Regulation), dated January 1987. Applicant appeals the 11 June 2003 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial of her trustworthiness determination because of Financial Considerations, Personal Conduct, and Criminal Conduct. Applicant answered the SOR, and requested an administrative decision on the record, on 1 July 2003 and 26 September 2003. She did not respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM)--issued 18 December 2003; the record in this case closed 7 February 2004, the day the response was due at DOHA. The case was assigned to me on 15 April 2004 to decide if she is eligible to occupy an Information Systems Position.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR; (1) accordingly, I incorporate her admissions as findings of fact. Applicant--a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor--seeks access to sensitive personal information. She has not previously held a position requiring a trustworthiness determination. In October 2001, Applicant falsified her public trust position application by failing to disclose any of her delinquent accounts. Although she denies failing to disclose the two judgment accounts on the technical ground that she did not know those accounts had gone to judgment, she acknowledges that she was aware that she had these delinquent accounts, as well as the twelve others that she also failed to disclose elsewhere on the application. She falsified her application because she knew that she would not get the public trust job if she disclosed her financial difficulties. Applicant has 14 delinquent debts, totaling nearly $11,000.00, none of which have been paid. Except for a $5500.00 automobile repossession, all of the debts are less than $700.00 and five are less than $300.00. Applicant attributes her financial problems to mismanaging her finances, especially after she lost her job. In October 2002, Applicant's personal financial statement showed positive cash flow of $150.00 per month. However, she was not paying on any of the accounts, despite being able to keep her expenses down since at least March 1996 because she lives at home with her mother. While her answers stated that she expected to start paying some of the delinquent accounts in January 2004, she had not taken any action as of her September 2003 response and did not respond to the FORM with any evidence of payment since September 2003. The record contains no evidence of Applicant's work performance or character.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an individual's eligibility for a trustworthiness position. 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 eligibility 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). 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. CRIMINAL CONDUCT (GUIDELINE J) E2.A10.1.1. The Concern: 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. 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 the applicant to establish eligibility 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 eligibility. Persons seeking trustworthiness positions enter into a fiduciary relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where proven facts 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 eligible for a trustworthiness position.

CONCLUSION

The government established its Guideline F case and Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns. The record evidence clearly establishes her indebtedness and her current inability to address that indebtedness in a systematic fashion. Applicant's financial problems were due to her own financial mismanagement, and she has taken no steps to address even the smallest of her debts, despite having positive cash flow since October 2002 and living with her mother. Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her financial difficulties are both recent and not isolated; indeed they are ongoing. I resolve Guideline F against Applicant. The government established its Guideline E case and Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns. She falsified her position application because she knew she would not get the job otherwise. In doing so, she demonstrated her willingness to put her personal interest ahead of her obligation to the government. I resolve Guideline E against Applicant. The government established its Guideline J case and Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns. Her deliberate falsification was intended to mislead the government and help her obtain employment she would otherwise not have obtained. The falsification had the potential to affect the government's investigation. I resolve 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 Subparagraph g: Against the Applicant Subparagraph h: Against the Applicant Subparagraph i: Against the Applicant Subparagraph j: Against the Applicant Subparagraph k: Against the Applicant Subparagraph l: Against the Applicant Subparagraph m: Against the Applicant Subparagraph n: Against the Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Paragraph 3. Guideline J: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: 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 designation of trustworthiness, suitability, and eligibility for Applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position. John G. Metz, Jr. Administrative Judge 1. She denies failing to disclose her judgments (subparagraph 2.a.) because she was unaware these debts had gone to judgment, but acknowledges that she did not report these debts as past due elsewhere on her application.

FOOTNOTES

03-03525.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Rita C. O'Brien, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-03525.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:10:35 PM] 03-03525.h1