CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-19029.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-19029.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-19029.h1

deniedSep 22, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant failed to report over $50,000 in delinquent debts on his SF-86, specifically on questions 38 and 39, which pertain to financial delinquencies exceeding 90 and 180 days.

The applicant admitted to deliberately withholding this information, stating he considered it a private matter irrelevant to his security clearance and did not wish to include adverse information on his application. This deliberate concealment raised disqualifying conditions related to personal and criminal conduct, specifically E2.A5.1.1, E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A10.1.2.1, and E2.A10.1.2.2.

The judge determined that the applicant's intentional omission demonstrated questionable judgment and unreliability. No mitigating conditions were found applicable to address this conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant deliberately withheld information about delinquent debts from his security clearance application.
The omission raised concerns about his judgment and reliability in safeguarding classified information.
No mitigating conditions were applicable to address the disqualifying conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedSingle Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

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 issuedFeb 12, 2004
Answer filedMar 3, 2004Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateSep 22, 2004

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Financial Delinquencies as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Failure to Report Relevant Information as a Violation of 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001 Under Guideline J
The Importance of Trustworthiness and Reliability in Security Clearance Determinations.

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 under Guideline E due to the deliberate omission of over $50,000 in delinquent debts from his security clearance application. The applicant acknowledged withholding this information, believing it was a private matter not relevant to his security clearance. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant's actions indicated questionable judgment and unreliability, leading to the denial of his clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not report the debts on questions 38 and 39 concerning financial delinquencies of over 90 and 180 days. He acknowledged he deliberately withheld the information because he regarded it as a private matter not relevant to his holding a security clearance and he did not want to reflect adverse information on his 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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations under Guideline J. The applicant admitted to failing to report required information on his security clearance application, which constituted a violation of federal law.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant is a 44 year old employee of a defense contractor who, when he completed his SF 86, had delinquent debts from his private business of over $50,000.00. He did not report the debts on questions 38 and 39 concerning financial delinquencies of over 90 and 180 days. He acknowledged he deliberately withheld the information because he regarded it as a private matter not relevant to his holding a security clearance and he did not want to reflect adverse information on his application. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 03-19029.h1

DATE: 09/22/2004

DATE: September 22, 2004

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-19029

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 44 year old employee of a defense contractor who, when he completed his SF 86, had delinquent debts from his private business of over $50,000.00. He did not report the debts on questions 38 and 39 concerning financial delinquencies of over 90 and 180 days. He acknowledged he deliberately withheld the information because he regarded it as a private matter not relevant to his holding a security clearance and he did not want to reflect adverse information on his application. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On February 12, 2004, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 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 March 3, 2004, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on May 25, 2004. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant submitted no additional information, and the case was assigned to me July 19, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He admitted all of the allegations concerning personal conduct for failing to list his debts on his security clearance application (SF 86). He denied the allegation concerning criminal conduct. 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 completed his SF 86 on March 25, 2003, at which time he had delinquent debts from his private business of over $50,000.00. He did not report the debts in answer to questions 38 and 39 dealing with financial delinquencies of over 90 and 180 days.

Later in 2003, he either paid most of the debts or arranged for a payment program for some of the larger debts. Applicant acknowledged he deliberately withheld the information because he regarded it as a private matter not relevant to his holding a security clearance and he did not want to reflect adverse information on his application.

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:

Under Guideline E, Applicant's failure to report his delinquent debts might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. (E2.A5.1.1.) Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.) Applicant's excuses for failure to report the debts do not absolve him of a finding in support of the allegation. He knew the information would be regarded as adverse and he had no sound reason to believe such information was not relevant to his holding a security clearance since it was clearly requested on the form. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

Allegations of criminal conduct raise a number of Disqualifying Conditions (DC) under Guideline J relating to a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses (E2.A10.1.2.2.) and allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged (E2.A10.1.2.1.). Applicant's admission that he deliberately failed to truthfully report required information on his SF 86 is a violation of 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001, a criminal statute about which he was warned on the SF 86 form. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

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. 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 E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a. 1-14: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2.Guideline J: 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

FOR GOVERNMENT Edward W. Loughran, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-19029.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:31:20 PM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se