ISCR Case 04-03119.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-03119.h1

deniedAug 31, 2006· Hon. Michael J. Breslin· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old male applicant with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved financial obligations and deliberate falsification of his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose a $10,600 judgment from October 2000 related to an automobile repossession for which he was a co-signer. He also falsely answered "No" to questions on his March 8, 2003, application regarding property repossessions within the last seven years and being more than 90 or 180 days delinquent on debts. While some payments were made after the security investigation began, and arrangements were claimed for other debts, the applicant did not consistently resolve all obligations or provide sufficient documentation for claimed payments or arrangements.

The denial was based on the applicant's history of failing to meet financial obligations, his unwillingness or inability to pay delinquent debts, and his falsification of the security clearance application by concealing material facts about his financial history. The applicant ultimately failed to mitigate these security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of failing to meet financial obligations and being unwilling or unable to pay delinquent debts.
Applicant falsified his security clearance application by failing to report his delinquent debts.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial difficulties and from his falsifications.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A6.1.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.3appliedFinancial ConsiderationsApplicant's financial problems arose as a result of conditions largely beyond his control.
E2.A5.1.3.2appliedPersonal ConductOnly one instance of falsification occurred, and Applicant has been forthcoming about his debts since.

Key Rule Quoted

“"The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance."”
— Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 13, 2005
Answer filedNov 29, 2005
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the matter decided without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 31, 2006

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Consideration of Mitigating Conditions Related to Personal Conduct and Financial Difficulties

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
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified material facts on the Security Clearance Application dated March 8, 2003, when he answered "No" to Question 35: "In the last 7 years, have you had any property repossessed for any reason?"	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant wrongfully concealed the unpaid judgment in the amount of $10,600.00 the automobile credit company obtained against him in October 2000.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant falsified his responses to Questions 38 and 39, respectively, when he denied that he had ever been more than 180 days delinquent on a debt within the preceding 7 years, and that he was not then over 90 days delinquent on any debts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately falsified material facts on the Security Clearance Application dated March 8, 2003, when he answered "No" to Question 35: "In the last 7 years, have you had any property repossessed for any reason?"

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant wrongfully concealed the unpaid judgment in the amount of $10,600.00 the automobile credit company obtained against him in October 2000.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant falsified his responses to Questions 38 and 39, respectively, when he denied that he had ever been more than 180 days delinquent on a debt within the preceding 7 years, and that he was not then over 90 days delinquent on any debts.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.d

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a judgment against him in the amount of approximately $10,600.00 from an automobile credit company due to a repossession of a vehicle co-signed for his daughter. $10,600	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant has failed to pay several debts, including a substantial judgment entered in 2000.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant has paid some of the delinquent debts after the initiation of the security investigation.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	Applicant has made arrangements to pay some debts but has not provided documentation or details about these arrangements.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
1.e	Applicant has a debt that he claims to have paid but does not have a receipt for.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant has a debt that he claims the creditor is unable to find the account, therefore he cannot complete payment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Debt Disputed with Creditor
1.g	Applicant has a debt that he claims to have made arrangements to pay but did not provide the terms of the arrangements or indicate whether he made any payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant has a debt that he claims to have made arrangements to pay but did not provide the terms of the arrangements or indicate whether he made any payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has a judgment against him in the amount of approximately $10,600.00 from an automobile credit company due to a repossession of a vehicle co-signed for his daughter.

$10,600

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.b

Applicant has failed to pay several debts, including a substantial judgment entered in 2000.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

Applicant has paid some of the delinquent debts after the initiation of the security investigation.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

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

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.d

Applicant has made arrangements to pay some debts but has not provided documentation or details about these arrangements.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

Claimed

Payment Plan with Creditor

1.e

Applicant has a debt that he claims to have paid but does not have a receipt for.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant has a debt that he claims the creditor is unable to find the account, therefore he cannot complete payment.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

Claimed

Debt Disputed with Creditor

1.g

Applicant has a debt that he claims to have made arrangements to pay but did not provide the terms of the arrangements or indicate whether he made any payments.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.h

Applicant has a debt that he claims to have made arrangements to pay but did not provide the terms of the arrangements or indicate whether he made any payments.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

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