CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-21654.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-21654.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-21654.h1

deniedApr 21, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old Benefits Service Representative was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to significant and ongoing financial difficulties. Her financial problems began in the late 1990s after her husband's work injury, leading to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in October 1997, which discharged approximately $18,174.00 in debts by January 1998.

Despite some efforts to resolve outstanding debts, including payments made in August 2005 for a $191.00 utility debt, a $240.00 debt, and a $738.00 debt, several substantial obligations remained. These included a $643.00 collection agency debt, a $7,398.00 debt from a 2001 vehicle repossession, and a $4,768.00 debt also from a 2001 vehicle repossession, all of which were unpaid. Additionally, the applicant acknowledged approximately $217.00 in medical accounts placed for collection, which she had not paid due to uncertainty about the creditors.

The applicant also had about $18,900.00 in student loan debts, which were delinquent when held by the U.S. Department of Education but were recently consolidated with a new lender, with the first payment due soon. The judge found that the applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations and ongoing financial problems, including over $30,000 in remaining unsecured debt, demonstrated a lack of financial stability, leading to the denial of her trustworthiness determination.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations, as evidenced by numerous delinquent debts.
The applicant's financial problems are ongoing, with over $30,000 in unsecured debt remaining and no evidence of financial stability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant's failure to address two significant debts precludes application.

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 4, 2005
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 6, 2005
Decision dateApr 21, 2006

Cite For

Financial Overextension as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline E
Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties
Impact of Ongoing Financial Issues on Trustworthiness 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 on personal conduct concerns related to financial difficulties. The applicant's ongoing financial problems, including numerous delinquent debts, were deemed inconsistent with the national interest for holding a sensitive Information Systems Position.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant's financial difficulties began in the late 1990s when her husband was injured on the job and his employer refused to pay workers compensation benefits. In October 1997, she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and in January 1998, a number of debts, totaling approximately $18,174.00, were discharged by the Bankruptcy Court.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.b	This $191.00 utility debt was paid in August 2005.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.c	Applicant admits that she is "indebted to an unknown creditor on four medical accounts placed for collection in the approximate amount of $217.00." At the hearing applicant testified credibly that she hasn't paid these debts because she doesn't know "what accounts and what collection agency" are involved (TR at 15-16).	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.d	This $240.00 debt was paid in August 2005.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.e	This $643.00 debt to a collection agency remains unpaid.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.f	This $7,398.00 debt, which resulted from a vehicle repossession, and has been in collection since 2001, remains unpaid.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.g	This $4,768.00 debt arose following a vehicle repossession in 2001, and remains unpaid.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.h	This $738.00 debt was satisfied in August 2005.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
1.i	Applicant has about $18,900.00 in student loan debts. Her payments were delinquent when the loans were held by the U.S. Department of Education. The debts were recently transferred to a new lender and consolidated. Applicant's first payment under the new, consolidated loan is due later this month.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). 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: April 21, 2006 In Re: ---------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ADP Case No. 03-21654 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant has been experiencing significant financial problems for many years. These problems continued after she received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 1998. Determination of Trustworthiness is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On April 9, 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 (ASDC3I), entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which gave DOHA the responsibility to provide trustworthiness determinations for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions as defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2R, Personnel Security Program, dated January 1987. On August 4, 2005, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability, and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position (ADP-I/II/III). Applicant responded to the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to the undersigned on November 10, 2005. A Notice of Hearing was issued on November 15, 2005, and the hearing was held on December 6, 2005. The transcript was received on January 18, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 39 year old Benefits Service Representative. SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant's financial difficulties began in the late 1990swhen her husband was injured on the job and his employer refused to pay workers compensation benefits. In October 1997, she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and in January 1998, a number of debts, totaling approximately $18,174.00, were discharged by the Bankruptcy Court. SOR Allegation 1b: This $191.00 utility debt was paid in August 2005. SOR Allegation 1c: Applicant admits that she is "indebted to an unknown creditor on four medical accounts placed for collection in the approximate amount of $217.00." At the hearing applicant testified credibly that she hasn't paid these debts because she doesn't know "what accounts and what collection agency" are involved (TR at 15-16). SOR Allegation 1d: This $240.00 debt was paid in August 2005. SOR Allegation 1e: This $643.00 debt to a collection agency remains unpaid. SOR Allegation 1f: This $7,398.00 debt, which resulted from a vehicle repossession, and has been in collection since 2001, remains unpaid. SOR Allegation 1g: This $4,768.00 debt arose following a vehicle repossession in 2001, and remains unpaid. SOR Allegation 1h: This $738.00 debt was satisfied in August 2005. SOR Allegation 1i: Applicant has about $18,900.00 in student loan debts. Her payments were delinquent when the loans were held by the U.S. Department of Education. The debts were recently transferred to a new lender and consolidated. Applicant's first payment under the new, consolidated loan is due later this month. Documentary evidence offered by applicant indicates she performs well at her job and is considered responsible and trustworthy by her employer.

CONCLUSION

Despite receiving a Bankruptcy Discharge in 1998, applicant is still experiencing significant financial problems, as evidenced by her numerous delinquent debts. 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) of the Financial Considerations guideline are applicable. In view of how applicant's financial problems began, she qualifies for Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.3 (the conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control). And, although her failure to address two of the more significant debts listed in the SOR (i.e., the $7,398.00 and $4,768.00 debts) precludes application of Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.6, her payment of three of the past-due debts listed in the SOR is noted. Applicant is a hardworking, valuable employee. However, as she testified, at the present time, she is "still in debt, living paycheck to paycheck . . ." (TR at 13). With over $30,000.00 in unsecured debt remaining, and no evidence that she will be in a position to significantly reduce this debt anytime soon, applicant cannot be deemed to be financial stable. Rather, she must be deemed to be financially overextended. As such, her situation fits squarely within the Financial Guideline Concern expressed in the Directive (E2.A6.1.1.1 - An individual who is financial overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.) Based on this fact, I have no choice but to conclude it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest for applicant to have access to sensitive medical information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: 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 make or continue a determination of trustworthiness, suitability and eligibility for applicant to hold a sensitive Information Systems Position. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

03-21654.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-21654.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:36:03 PM] 03-21654.h1