ISCR Case 03-23765.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-23765.h1

deniedNov 30, 2005· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old technician and retired Army staff sergeant was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had over $29,000 in delinquent debts, including more than $15,700 in collection and over $15,800 charged off as bad debts. He also had a history of not meeting financial obligations, despite being able to pay some debts and receiving credit counseling. Although he had an approved Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, it was recent, and he had not demonstrated a sufficient record of solvency.

Additionally, the applicant falsified his security clearance application in March 2002 by failing to disclose multiple drug and alcohol-related offenses, including marijuana possession in April 1979, driving while intoxicated in September 1980 and December 1998, and driving under the influence in July 1997. He also failed to disclose delinquent debts from the previous seven years.

The judge found insufficient mitigation for the security concerns related to financial considerations and personal conduct, concluding that the applicant had not adequately resolved his substantial delinquent debts and had deliberately falsified his application regarding both his financial situation and criminal history. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has over $29,000 in delinquent debts, which he failed to resolve adequately.
Applicant deliberately falsified his security clearance application regarding his financial situation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations - History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedFinancial Considerations - Unable or Unwilling to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission of Relevant Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct - Serious Offense
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedCriminal Conduct - Pattern of Criminal Activity

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedFinancial Considerations - Debts Largely Beyond ControlApplicant's financial issues were not shown to be largely beyond his control.
E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedFinancial Considerations - Good Faith Effort to Resolve DebtsApplicant's efforts were insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.
E2.A5.1.3rejectedPersonal Conduct - Mitigating CircumstancesNo mitigating conditions applied to the falsification of the SCA.
E2.A10.1.3rejectedCriminal Conduct - Mitigating CircumstancesNo mitigating conditions applied to the criminal conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“"An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance."”
— ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 9, 2004
Answer filedFeb 4, 2005
Hearing heldAug 17, 2005
Decision dateNov 30, 2005

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant falsified his SCA by failing to disclose all of the instances in which he had been charged with or convicted of a drug or alcohol-related offense.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant failed to disclose that, in the previous seven years, he had debts that were delinquent more than 180 days, and that he then had delinquent debts that were delinquent more than 90 days.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	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

In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant falsified his SCA by failing to disclose all of the instances in which he had been charged with or convicted of a drug or alcohol-related offense.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

—

Denied

—

3.b

In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant failed to disclose that, in the previous seven years, he had debts that were delinquent more than 180 days, and that he then had delinquent debts that were delinquent more than 90 days.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

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	Applicant had delinquent debts totaling more than $15,700 that were in collection status $15,700	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant had delinquent debts totaling more than $15,800 that had been charged off as bad debts $15,800	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant incurred several debts which he did not pay in a timely manner	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant was personally able to pay these debts but chose not to do so	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant received debt management credit counseling and had a plan to pay off some of the debts	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has failed to substantially reduce his debts in the past four years	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant has an approved Chapter 13 plan to resolve these debts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant's Chapter 13 plan is only a few months old and requires him to make substantial payments each month	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient record of solvency and paying his bills	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k–1.p	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant had delinquent debts totaling more than $15,700 that were in collection status

$15,700

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

Applicant had delinquent debts totaling more than $15,800 that had been charged off as bad debts

$15,800

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant incurred several debts which he did not pay in a timely manner

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

Applicant was personally able to pay these debts but chose not to do so

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.f

Applicant received debt management credit counseling and had a plan to pay off some of the debts

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.g

Applicant has failed to substantially reduce his debts in the past four years

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.h

Applicant has an approved Chapter 13 plan to resolve these debts

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.i

Applicant's Chapter 13 plan is only a few months old and requires him to make substantial payments each month

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.j

Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient record of solvency and paying his bills

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.k–1.p

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant possessed marijuana in April 1979	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant drove while intoxicated in September 1980	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Arrested Not Charged	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	Applicant drove under the influence in July 1997	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.d	Applicant drove while intoxicated in December 1998	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Arrested Not Charged	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.e	Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SCA in March 2002	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant possessed marijuana in April 1979

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.b

Applicant drove while intoxicated in September 1980

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Arrested Not Charged

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.c

Applicant drove under the influence in July 1997

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.d

Applicant drove while intoxicated in December 1998

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Arrested Not Charged

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

2.e

Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by falsifying his SCA in March 2002

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(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

APPEARANCES