CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-10104.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 04-10104.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-10104.h1

deniedJan 30, 2006· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $11,000 in delinquent debt and deliberate falsification of her security clearance application regarding past marijuana use. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were not prioritized and that her falsification of the application indicated a lack of trustworthiness.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant falsified her SCA by deliberately omitting information in question 27 about her use of illegal drugs within the previous seven years (2.a). judgment-$2,837 (1.a). collection acct-$434 (1.b). collection acct-$180 (1.c). collection acct-$281 (1.d). collection acct-$129 (1.e). collection acct-$41 (1.f). collection acct-$142 (1.g). charged off acct-$8,101 (1.h).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A5.1.2.2. The decision turned on the following: Applicant incurred over $11,000 in delinquent debt between 1998 and 2002, indicating financial irresponsibility; Applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application by denying past marijuana use, demonstrating untrustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred over $11,000 in delinquent debt between 1998 and 2002, indicating financial irresponsibility.
Applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application by denying past marijuana use, demonstrating untrustworthiness.

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 Falsification of Information

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant may be disqualified from obtaining a security clearance if she deliberately falsifies relevant and material information on her SCA.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 14, 2005
Answer filedAug 3, 2005
Hearing heldDec 6, 2005
Decision dateJan 30, 2006

Cite For

Delinquent Debt as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Prioritization of Financial Obligations in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 that the applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application by denying her use of marijuana in the previous seven years. The applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding her trustworthiness and reliability, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified her SCA by deliberately omitting information in question 27 about her use of illegal drugs within the previous seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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 applicant incurred over $11,000 in delinquent debt between 1998 and 2002, which the judge found to be a significant concern. The judge ruled against the applicant on most financial allegations, citing a lack of prioritization in addressing her debts, despite some claims of mitigating circumstances.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	judgment-$2,837 $2,837	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	collection acct-$434 $434	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	collection acct-$180 $180	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	collection acct-$281 $281	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	collection acct-$129 $129	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	collection acct-$41 $41	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	collection acct-$142 $142	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	charged off acct-$8,101 $8,101	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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: Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant incurred over $11,000 in delinquent debt between 1998 and 2002. The debts do not appear to be a priority in her life. She also deliberately falsified her security clearance application by denying she had used marijuana in the previous seven years. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 04-10104.h1

DATE: 01/30/2006

DATE: January 30, 2006

In re:

----------------------------

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 04-10104

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JAMES A. YOUNG SYNOPSIS

Applicant incurred over $11,000 in delinquent debt between 1998 and 2002. The debts do not appear to be a priority in her life. She also deliberately falsified her security clearance application by denying she had used marijuana in the previous seven years. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. In accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on 14 July 2005 detailing the basis for its decision-security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on 3 August 2005 and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on 27 October 2005. On 6 December 2005, I convened a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on 16 December 2005.

Department Counsel moved to amend the allegation in ¶ 2.a by changing "Question 29" to "Question 27." Applicant had no objection, so I granted the motion.

At Applicant's request I kept the record open so she could submit additional evidence. On 20 December 2005, I admitted, without objection, her additional evidence as Ex. B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She was originally hired in November 2002 to work in the Facility Security Office performing administrative work. She now works at a project level security office. Tr. 24. She has one child, by her second husband, who lives with her and her third husband. Her third husband's daughter, who was born deaf, also lives with them.

Applicant experimented with marijuana when she was 16 or 17 years old. After she married her second husband in 1990, they moved to a town near where he grew up. She started smoking marijuana with her husband and his friends on a daily basis. Applicant stopped smoking marijuana after her daughter was born in 1994. But between then and 1999, she smoked marijuana on two or three occasions. In October 1999, Applicant's employer selected her for random drug testing. The specimen tested positive for the metabolites of marijuana. Ex. 2; Ex. 5.

On 19 February 2003, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) by certifying that the information she provided was "true, complete, and correct" to the best of her knowledge and belief and acknowledging that a knowing and willful false statement could be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. Ex. 1 at 20. Question 27 asked if, in the previous seven years, Applicant had illegally used any controlled substance, such as marijuana. Applicant answered "no." Ex. 1 at 12. In a signed, sworn statement made on 20 May 2003 to an investigator for the Defense Security Service, Applicant asserted she"forgot about the test in 99." Ex. 2 at 2. In her Answer and at the hearing, Applicant claimed she falsified her SCA because the facility security officer "insisted on full disclosure and a personal review of my application." Answer at 6. She asserts she was in fear of losing her job and, had she complete privacy, she would have been truthful. Id.; Tr. 41-43.

The following chart summarizes the allegations in ¶ 1 of the SOR and the status of the debts:

Debt Status Record 1.a-judgment-$2,837 Unpaid, but no longer on credit report. Tr. 29 1.b-collection acct- Unpaid-utility bill was in her name. She gave her ex-husband a few months to Tr. 30-31 $434 change acct. He didn't. 1.c-collection acct- Pediatric bill-she denies debt-claims her daughter was not in state on date of debt. Tr. 32-33 $180 1.d-collection acct- Creditor offered to settle for $210 if paid by 30 Dec 2005. No proof of payment. Ex. B at $281 6-7 1.e-collection acct- Paid $30. Creditor offered to settle for $97 if paid by 30 Dec 2005. No proof of Ex. B at $129 payment. 4-5 1.f-collection acct-$41 Unpaid. Tr. 35; Ans. 1.g-collection acct- Unpaid. Tr. 35; $142 Ans. 1.h-charged off acct- Turned vehicle back to dealer. Debt is balance after resale. Unpaid. Tr. 35-36 $8,101

Applicant and her husband recently closed on the purchase of a home. The mortgage payments are $1,200 per month. She withdrew money from her 401(k) plan. Some of the money-$15,000-was used for the down payment and the rest was used to pay off two credit card debts incurred by the husband. They pay $365 a month to a credit service to resolve debts the husband incurred with his now deceased first wife. That plan requires them to continue making payments for 18-24 more months.

Applicant is paid about $3,200 a month. Her husband is a licensed electrician and his pay matches hers. The couple own a 2005 truck on which they pay $609 a month. Applicant's stepdaughter was born deaf and requires expensive hearing aids. A court has ordered Applicant's ex-husband to pay child support. He was paying through the court. Applicant permitted him to pay her directly and he promptly stopped making timely payments.

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information "only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive. 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.

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

CONCLUSION

Guideline F-Financial Considerations

In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant is indebted to a creditor for more than $2,800 as a result of a judgment (¶ 1.a); six debts totaling more than $ 1,200 that are in collection status (¶¶ 1.b-1.g); and one debt for more than $8,100 that had been charged off (¶ 1.h). In her answer, Applicant admitted each of the allegations, except those in ¶¶ 1.band 1.c. An applicant who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Directive ¶ E2.A6.1.1.

The Government's evidence established potentially disqualifying conditions under Guideline F. Applicant has a history of not meeting her financial obligations (DC E2.A6.1.2.1.) and is unable or unwilling to satisfy her debts (DC E2.A6.1.2.3.). An applicant may mitigate such security concerns by establishing that the delinquent debts resulted from conditions that were largely beyond the applicant's control. MC E2.A6.1.3.3. Applicant established that her divorce caused some financial problems. But the issue in Applicant's case is a matter of priorities. She has purchased a home, bought a truck requiring substantial monthly payments, and helped pay off her husband's debts. She has not made the payment of her own debts a priority. She failed to pay even debts as small as $42 (¶ 1.f) and $129 (¶ 1.e). Applicant presented evidence that the creditor offered to settle the debts alleged in ¶¶ 1.dand 1.e for less than the full amount. But she presented no evidence she accepted the offer and paid them off. I accepted her testimony that the pediatric debt (¶ 1.c) could not be accurate because her daughter was not in the state at the time of the billing. I find against Applicant on ¶ 1.

Guideline E--Personal Conduct

In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant falsified her SCA by deliberately omitting information in question 27 about her use of illegal drugs within the previous seven years. ¶ 2.a. Applicant denied the allegation, but admitted she had falsified her answer to question 27 about her drug use. Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate the applicant may not properly safeguard classified information. Directive ¶ E2.A5.1.1.

The evidence established Applicant deliberately falsified her SCA by denying she had used marijuana in the previous seven years. An applicant may be disqualified from obtaining a security clearance if she deliberately falsifies relevant and material information on her SCA. DC E2.A5.1.2.2. An applicant's illegal use of drugs is relevant and material to a determination of an the applicant's security worthiness. I considered the fact that Applicant should have been permitted to protect the privacy of her answer to this question. Nevertheless, she signed the SCA after certifying she was telling the truth. Under the circumstances, I find none of the mitigating conditions listed under the guideline apply. I find against Applicant on ¶ 2.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline : AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

James A. Young

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-10104.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:37:13 PM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se