CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-12820.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 04-12820.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-12820.h1

deniedAug 25, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from a history of financial irresponsibility and the intentional falsification of information on his Security Clearance Application (SCA).

Specifically, the applicant provided false material information in response to three questions on the SCA. He incorrectly stated that he had no unpaid judgments against him in the previous seven years, that he had not been over 180 days delinquent on any debt in the previous seven years, and that he was not currently 90 days delinquent on any debt. These misrepresentations were central to the Guideline E concerns.

Under Guideline F, the applicant demonstrated a long-standing history of not meeting financial obligations, including a $2,049 civil judgment from June 2000. While he satisfied one alleged debt, his financial problems began around April 1999 when he went on strike, and there was no evidence to suggest a significant improvement in his financial condition was likely. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial history and dishonesty made granting access to classified information inconsistent with national interest, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a long-standing history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application.

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 issuedAug 5, 2005
Answer filedSep 20, 2005
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Decision dateAug 25, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Denial Due to Intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Importance of Honesty and Integrity 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on Guideline E due to intentional falsification of material facts on a Security Clearance Application (SCA). The applicant's history of financial difficulties and lack of evidence to suggest improvement contributed to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant provided false material information in response to three questions on the SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	In response to Question 37, he stated he had no judgments entered against him during the previous seven years that had not been paid.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	In response to Question 38, he falsely stated that during the previous seven years he had not been over 180 days delinquent on any debt.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.d	In response to Question 39, he falsely stated that he was not then 90 days delinquent on any debt.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing a history of not meeting financial obligations and a lack of evidence suggesting improvement. The applicant's financial difficulties, exacerbated by a strike, did not qualify for mitigation, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	A civil judgment in the amount of $2,049.00 was entered against applicant in June 2000. $2,049	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has not presented evidence that going on strike was beyond his control.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant's financial problems began in about April 1999 when he went on strike and didn't receive any pay until August 1999.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant's long-standing indebtedness precludes a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations and the lack of any evidence that would suggest his financial condition is likely to significantly improve anytime soon.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant satisfied the debt alleged in SOR Paragraph 1h.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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

APPEARANCES

DATE: August 25, 2006

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 04-12820

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's long-standing indebtedness and his 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 him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 5, 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 September 20, 2005 and in October 2005, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about April 20, 2006. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on August 16, 2006.

RULINGS ON PROCEDURE

In the FORM, Department Counsel moved to amend SOR Allegations 2a, 2b, and 2c. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel's motion is granted, and the SOR is amended as requested by Department Counsel in the FORM.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 51 year old employee of a defense contractor. Under Guideline F, applicant admits SOR Allegations 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, and 1g. These allegations are therefore incorporated by reference as Findings of Fact.

With respect to SOR Allegation 1b, a civil judgment in the amount of $2,049.00 was entered against applicant in June 2000. In a signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) in April 2004 (Exhibit 14), applicant acknowledged the judgment and stated he is "paying [the creditor] $50 per month and the debt is now down to $350.00, soon the judgment will be satisfied." However, other than a copy of a check dated 8-22-05 made out to the creditor in the amount of $124.65 that he attached to his SOR response, applicant offered no evidence to corroborate his statements that he is making regular payments to the creditor and that the debt has been reduced to $350.00.

Applicant satisfied the debt alleged in SOR Paragraph 1h.

Applicant states that his "financial problems began in about April 1999 when [he] went on strike and didn't receive any pay until August 1999, when [he] went back to work" (Exhibit 14).

With respect to Guideline E, applicant completed and executed an SCA in September 2004 (Exhibit 7). Applicant provided false material information in response to three questions on the SCA. In response to Question 37, he stated he had no judgments entered against him during the previous seven years that had not been paid. In fact, there were two unpaid judgments that were entered against him during the previous seven years. In response to Question 38, he falsely stated that during the previous seven years he had not been over 180 days delinquent on any debt. And, in response to

Question 39, he falsely stated that he was not then 90 days delinquent on any debt. In Exhibit 14, applicant stated the following about the falsifications:

When preparing my security form I indicated "no" to all of the questions pertaining to personal financial problems. I believed at the time that I had made significant progress in rectifying my financial situation since the strike. It was not my intent to provide false information or falsify an official document in order to misrepresent myself to the U.S. Department of Defense.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. This fact requires 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 his financial condition is likely to significantly improve anytime soon, it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his access to classified information. No mitigating conditions are applicable. (1) Based on the foregoing, Guideline F is found against applicant.

With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsifications of material facts on the SCA are 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

PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE 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

1. Applicant has the burden to show mitigating conditions are applicable. Although going on strike undoubtedly contributed to applicant's financial difficulties, he has not presented evidence that going on strike was beyond his control. Accordingly, Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.3 is not applicable.

FOOTNOTES

04-12820.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Ray T. Blank, Jr., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-12820.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:41:01 PM] 04-12820.h1