CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-00355.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 04-00355.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-00355.h1

deniedJan 27, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had a history of financial irresponsibility, evidenced by at least 18 past-due debts totaling approximately $42,000, all of which had been charged off or placed for collection.

In addition to the financial issues, the applicant intentionally falsified material facts on her Security Clearance Application. This deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant information raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

The judge determined that these factors, specifically the long-standing indebtedness and the intentional falsification of material facts, precluded a finding that granting access to classified information would be consistent with national interest. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations, with at least 18 past-due debts totaling approximately $42,000.
Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on her Security Clearance Application, undermining her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A6.1.2.1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
E2.A6.1.2.3appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2005
Answer filedApr 1, 2005Applicant elected to have her case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJan 27, 2006

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Material Facts on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
History of Financial Difficulties Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
Application of Disqualifying Conditions Related to Financial Obligations and Personal Conduct.

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 all allegations under Guideline E against the applicant, primarily due to intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application and a history of financial difficulties. The applicant's conduct was deemed inconsistent with the national interest, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b–2.c	2 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 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 a long-standing history of financial difficulties, with at least 18 past-due debts totaling approximately $42,000, which were either charged off or placed for collection. As a result, all allegations under Guideline F were found against the applicant, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has at least 18 past-due debts totaling approximately $42,000.00, all of which have been either charged off or placed for collection. $42,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b–1.r	17 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.

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; Financial DIGEST: Applicant's long-standing indebtedness and her intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) preclude a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her access to classified information. Clearance is denied. CASENO: 04-00355.h1 DATE: 01/27/2006 DATE: January 27, 2006

In Re:

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 04-00355

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's long-standing indebtedness and her intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) preclude a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On March 18, 2005, 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 responded to the SOR in writing on April 1, 2005, and elected to have her case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about June 8, 2005. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on July 19, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 40 year old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant admits all of the factual allegations under Guideline F. Accordingly, SOR Paragraphs 1a through 1rare incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.

Applicant admits all of the factual allegations under Guideline E. Accordingly, SOR Paragraphs 2a, 2band 2care incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that at the present time, applicant has at least 18 past-due debts totaling approximately $42,000.00, all of which have been either charged off or placed for collection. These facts require application of 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).

In view of applicant's long and extensive history of financial difficulties, and the lack of any evidence that would suggest her financial condition is likely to significantly improve anytime soon, it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her access to classified information. No mitigating conditions are applicable. Based on the foregoing, Guideline F is found against applicant.

With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsification of material facts on the SCA is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders. Applicant's intentional falsifications require application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .). No Mitigating Conditions apply. Based on the foregoing, Guideline E is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT All subparagraphs found against applicant

PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE APPLICANT All subparagraphs found against 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 Robert E. Coacher, Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00355.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:32 PM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se