ISCR Case 03-25388.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-25388.h1

grantedFeb 8, 2006· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old network engineer for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons primarily focused on claims that the applicant intentionally falsified her security clearance application regarding her employment record, security clearance history, and financial delinquencies. Additionally, financial concerns were raised, including a 1996 dispute over a lease termination, a 1997 medical bill judgment for $668.22, and several delinquent accounts noted on credit reports from 2003 and 2005, involving credit cards, a cell phone bill, and a department store charge account.

The judge found that the applicant successfully refuted the allegations of intentional falsification on her security clearance application. The conduct alleged under Guideline J was determined to be the same as that under Guideline E, and the applicant also refuted these claims.

Regarding financial considerations, the applicant demonstrated good-faith efforts to resolve her delinquent debts. Evidence presented supported her assertion that she was not more than 90 days delinquent on any debts when she completed her SF 86. Based on these findings, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully refuted allegations of intentional falsification of her security clearance application.
She demonstrated good-faith efforts to resolve her delinquent debts, which mitigated financial concerns.
The evidence supported her claims that she was not more than 90 days delinquent on any debts when she executed her SF 86.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedGood-faith Effort to Resolve Debts
E2.A6.1.3.1rejectedDelinquent Debts Were Not Recent
E2.A6.1.3.2rejectedIsolated Incident
E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's Control

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 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 11, 2005
Answer filedUndated
Hearing heldJan 12, 2006
Decision dateFeb 8, 2006

Cite For

Refutation of Allegations of Intentional Falsification Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Through Good-faith Efforts
Evaluation of Delinquent Debts in Relation to Security Clearance Applications

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
1.a	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her employment record.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her security clearance history.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her employment record.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her security clearance history.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her financial delinquencies.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her financial delinquencies.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her employment record.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

1.b

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her security clearance history.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.c

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her employment record.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

1.d

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her security clearance history.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

1.e

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her financial delinquencies.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

1.f

The applicant intentionally falsified answers to questions on her security clearance application regarding her financial delinquencies.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	In May 31, 1996, she moved out and immediately moved into her new home. She did not comply with the 30-day notice requirement, and she was aware she might be liable for one month's rent. The manager demanded four month's rent.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.b	In July 1997, a judgment in the amount of $668.22 for a medical bill was entered against Applicant. $668	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.c	Applicant's credit report dated March 26, 2003, reflected a delinquent credit card account.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Disputed with Creditor
3.d	Applicant's credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected an unpaid cell phone bill.	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.e	Her credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected a collection account originated from a department store charge account.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.f	Her credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected two delinquent credit card accounts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

In May 31, 1996, she moved out and immediately moved into her new home. She did not comply with the 30-day notice requirement, and she was aware she might be liable for one month's rent. The manager demanded four month's rent.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.b

In July 1997, a judgment in the amount of $668.22 for a medical bill was entered against Applicant.

$668

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.c

Applicant's credit report dated March 26, 2003, reflected a delinquent credit card account.

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Disputed with Creditor

3.d

Applicant's credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected an unpaid cell phone bill.

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.e

Her credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected a collection account originated from a department store charge account.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.f

Her credit report dated January 11, 2005, reflected two delinquent credit card accounts.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The conduct alleged under this guideline is the same conduct alleged under Guideline E. For the reasons stated above under the discussion of Guideline E, I conclude Applicant has refuted the allegations under Guideline J.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The conduct alleged under this guideline is the same conduct alleged under Guideline E. For the reasons stated above under the discussion of Guideline E, I conclude Applicant has refuted the allegations under Guideline J.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES