CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-04367.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-04367.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-04367.h1

deniedDec 27, 2005· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant was indebted to at least five creditors for over $7,700 in past-due debts, and to another creditor for approximately $612. The applicant admitted to specific allegations, which were incorporated as findings of fact.

Disqualifying conditions were raised concerning financial irresponsibility and a pattern of dishonesty or questionable judgment. While some mitigating conditions were applied regarding past criminal conduct, these were insufficient to overcome the more recent issues.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's history of failing to meet financial obligations, with debts exceeding $7,700. The applicant did not provide credible evidence of financial reform or a demonstrated ability to reduce his debts, leading to concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations, with debts exceeding $7,700.
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of financial reform or the ability to reduce his debts.
Concerns about the applicant's judgment and reliability were raised due to his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.4appliedThe Factors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2003
Answer filed—Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateDec 27, 2005

Cite For

Denial Based on Significant Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Obligations on Judgment and Reliability Under Guideline J
Mitigating Factors for Past Criminal Conduct Not Sufficient to Outweigh Financial Issues.

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 two allegations against the applicant under Guideline E, indicating concerns about personal conduct. The applicant's financial difficulties were significant enough to deny the security clearance, as they reflected adversely on his judgment and reliability.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

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 significant financial difficulties, including debts exceeding $7,700, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. Although some allegations were found for the applicant, the majority were against him, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant is indebted to at least five creditors for past-due debts in a total amount in excess of $7,700.00. $7,700	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $612.00. $612	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.d	The evidence is insufficient to prove applicant is indebted as alleged. (low confidence)	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.e–3.h	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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 two allegations against the applicant under Guideline J, but ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant regarding his criminal conduct. Despite the concerns raised, the judge determined that the applicant's criminal behavior was not recent and unlikely to recur, leading to a favorable finding for the applicant under Guideline J. However, the overall security clearance was denied due to other factors.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits SOR Allegations 1a and 1b. These allegations are therefore incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.b	Applicant admits SOR Allegations 1a and 1b. These allegations are therefore incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.c	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: December 27, 2005 In Re: ----------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 03-04367 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant's long-standing financial difficulties preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 3, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, 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 and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant subsequently responded to the SOR in writing and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel (DC) submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about June 8, 2004. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 27, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 41 year old employee of a defense contractor. Guideline J Applicant admits SOR Allegations 1a and 1b. These allegations are therefore incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact. Guideline E Although applicant admits SOR Allegations 2a and 2b, I find that, based on the evidence in the record, the incidents referenced in SOR Allegations 1a and 1bdid not require applicant to answer "yes" to either Question 21 or 24. Guideline F Applicant admits SOR Allegations 3a, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3gand 3h. These allegations are therefore incorporated by reference as

Findings of Fact.

SOR Allegation 3d: The evidence is insufficient to prove applicant is indebted as alleged. SOR Allegation 3e: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of $612.00 (Exhibit 6).

CONCLUSION

With respect to Guideline J, the conduct for which applicant received non-judicial-punishment in 1993 and 1997 raises concerns about his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Disqualifying Condition E2.A10.1.2.2 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) is applicable. However, Mitigating Conditions E2.A10.1.3.1 (the criminal behavior was not recent) and E2.A10.1.3.4 (the factors leading to the violation are not likely to recur) are also applicable. Because I conclude applicant's criminal conduct is unlikely to recur, Guideline J is found for him. With respect to Guideline F, the evidence establishes that applicant is indebted to at least five creditors for past-due debts in a total amount in excess of $7,700.00. Applicant's failure to honor his financial obligations reflects adversely on his judgment and reliability, and suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. With respect to the Financial Considerations guideline, Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not meeting financial obligations) and E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) are applicable. Once the Government established a prima facie case under Guideline F, the burden shifted to applicant to show he has reformed. Applicant failed to meet his burden. He offered no credible evidence that he (1) is in a position to significantly reduce this past-due indebtedness anytime soon, or (2) is unlikely to experience additional financial difficulties. Applicant does not qualify for any Mitigating Condition under Guideline F.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: FOR THE APPLICANT PARAGRAPH 2: FOR THE APPLICANT PARAGRAPH 3: 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. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Nygina T. Mills, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se