ISCR Case 04-05268.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-05268.h1

deniedJan 30, 2006· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old senior draftsman employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had over $26,000 in unresolved delinquent debts, including student loans totaling $24,735 that were placed for collection in December 2001. Other debts included a $447 revolving charge debt written off in February 2001, $408 in unpaid telephone service charges charged off in October 2001, a $540 past due credit card balance placed for collection in January 2001, and a $243 cable service debt placed for collection in December 2001.

A key issue was the applicant's deliberate falsification of his September 2003 security clearance application (SF 86). He denied having any debts delinquent more than 180 days in the previous seven years or any debts then delinquent more than 90 days, thereby failing to disclose his significant delinquent financial obligations.

Despite some efforts to resolve his debts, the judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of candor undermined his trustworthiness. The applicant's history of excessive indebtedness and recurring financial difficulties, combined with his failure to disclose these issues, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had unresolved delinquent debts totaling over $26,000, including student loans and consumer credit.
He failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's financial situation indicated a history of excessive indebtedness and recurring financial difficulties.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant exhibited some effort to repay his creditors, including settling certain debts.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's efforts to correct the omission of debts were not prompt or credible.

Key Rule Quoted

“"The security eligibility of an applicant is placed into question when the applicant is shown to have a history of excessive indebtedness, recurring financial difficulties, or a history of not meeting his financial obligations."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2004
Answer filedJan 25, 2005Notarized response submitted.
Hearing heldAug 10, 2005Originally scheduled for 08/08/2005.
Decision dateJan 30, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on Failure to Disclose Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Importance of Full Candor in 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
2.a	The applicant deliberately falsified his September 2003 security clearance application (SF 86) by denying any debts delinquent more than 180 days in the previous seven years and any debts that were then delinquent more than 90 days.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	The applicant did not disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant deliberately falsified his September 2003 security clearance application (SF 86) by denying any debts delinquent more than 180 days in the previous seven years and any debts that were then delinquent more than 90 days.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.b

The applicant did not disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	In late 2000, his student loans with a total balance of $20,000 were sold. In about December 2001, the loans were placed for collection in the aggregate amount of $24,735 $24,735	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	A $447 delinquent revolving charge debt was written off by another lender in February 2001 $447	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Unpaid telephone service charges of $408 were charged off by the utility company in about October 2001 $408	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	In January 2001, another credit card lender placed for collection a $540 past due balance $540	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	In December 2001, the provider of his cable services at the time placed a $243 debt for collection $243	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

In late 2000, his student loans with a total balance of $20,000 were sold. In about December 2001, the loans were placed for collection in the aggregate amount of $24,735

$24,735

Against Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

A $447 delinquent revolving charge debt was written off by another lender in February 2001

$447

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

Unpaid telephone service charges of $408 were charged off by the utility company in about October 2001

$408

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

In January 2001, another credit card lender placed for collection a $540 past due balance

$540

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e

In December 2001, the provider of his cable services at the time placed a $243 debt for collection

$243

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.f

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES