ISCR Case 05-08954.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-08954.h1

deniedAug 10, 2006· Hon. Thomas M. Crean· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old logistics program analyst for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from numerous delinquent debts and the applicant's failure to disclose all financial obligations on her security clearance application.

The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple outstanding debts, including amounts ranging from $21 to a veterinarian to $2,363 for past-due rent. Specific debts included $466 to a department store, a $1,278 credit card balance, and a $707 collection account for another department store. Other debts included a $1,275 credit card collection, a $677 department store collection, and a $556 telephone company collection. The applicant disputed several debts, such as a $585 apartment rent charge, a credit card collection account she claimed was fraudulent, and various medical and insurance expenses. A $42 returned check debt was stated as paid, though no proof was provided. A car loan resulted in a voluntary repossession in March 2003 with no payments made.

The judge found that the applicant admitted to seven delinquent debts and provided no documentation to support her claims of disputes or payments. Furthermore, she deliberately omitted several past-due obligations from her application, demonstrating a lack of candor. The applicant also failed to show a good-faith effort to resolve her debts, even while employed. These factors led to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to seven delinquent debts and provided no documentation to support her claims of disputes or payments.
The applicant deliberately omitted several past due obligations from her security clearance application, indicating a lack of candor.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve her debts, even during periods of employment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A6.1.2.1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3appliedAn Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were longstanding and not recent.
E2.A6.1.3.2rejectedIt Was an Isolated IncidentThe applicant had multiple debts from various sources.
E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide evidence of attempts to pay debts even when employed.
E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's testimony alone was insufficient to establish good-faith efforts.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Directive ¶ E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 8, 2005
Answer filedDec 5, 2005
Hearing heldJun 8, 2006in Charleston, South Carolina
Decision dateAug 10, 2006

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Lack of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Denial

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 deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from the personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 the personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

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

—

2.b

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR debt 1.a. is for $466 to a department store. Applicant stated this debt has not been paid and her last contact with the creditor was in 2003 by phone. The company wanted a lump sum payment and Applicant could not afford the payment. $466	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.b. which is a collection account for a credit card and not her debt. Her purse was stolen and someone used her identification to get credit cards. She wrote numerous letters to the credit report agency about the debt but it was not resolved.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	SOR debt 1.c. is for a credit card. Applicant stated the original debt was for approximately $334 but it is now $1,278 because of interest and charges. The last contact she had with the creditor was in 2005 when she tried to reach a settlement. $1,278	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	SOR debt 1.d. is to a collection agency for a department store for $707. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments. $707	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.e. for $585 for rent of an apartment. Applicant left the apartment but the landlord stated she owed rent for another month for early termination of the lease. $585	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	SOR debt 1.f. is to a collection agency for a credit card for $1,275. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments. $1,275	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.g	SOR debt 1.g is for a car loan on a car that was voluntarily repossessed in March 2003. Applicant stated she made no payments on this account.	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.h	SOR debt 1.h. is to a collection agency for a department store for $677. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments. $677	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.i	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.i. for medical expenses of $160. Applicant believed the expenses were covered by the medical insurance from her employer. $160	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.j–1.k	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.l	SOR debt 1.l. for $42 on a returned check has been paid. She was unable to present any proof of payment. $42	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.m	SOR debt 1.m. is for $21 to a veterinarian. Applicant states she never owed them any money since you have to pay your bill before leaving the veterinarian's office. $21	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.n	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.n. in collection for a medical service for $39. She does not know about the debt and does not remember incurring any such debt. $39	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.o	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.o. for $265 in collection for a cable company. She disputed her bill with the company but presented no documentation supporting the dispute. $265	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.p	Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.p. of $143 in collection for an insurance company. She does not know the company or the debt and has not contacted anyone concerning the debt. $143	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.q	SOR debt 1.q. is to a collection agency for a telephone company for $556. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments. $556	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.r	Applicant disputes SOR allegation 1.r. of $2,363 for rent due on an apartment. Applicant lost her job and had to move from her apartment. She left before the lease expired and the landlord charged her two months rent for early termination of the lease. $2,363	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.s	Applicant disputes SOR allegation 1.s. of $168 in collection. Applicant stated she had a zero balance on this account but did not present any documentation to verify the balance. $168	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

SOR debt 1.a. is for $466 to a department store. Applicant stated this debt has not been paid and her last contact with the creditor was in 2003 by phone. The company wanted a lump sum payment and Applicant could not afford the payment.

$466

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.b

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.b. which is a collection account for a credit card and not her debt. Her purse was stolen and someone used her identification to get credit cards. She wrote numerous letters to the credit report agency about the debt but it was not resolved.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

SOR debt 1.c. is for a credit card. Applicant stated the original debt was for approximately $334 but it is now $1,278 because of interest and charges. The last contact she had with the creditor was in 2005 when she tried to reach a settlement.

$1,278

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.d

SOR debt 1.d. is to a collection agency for a department store for $707. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments.

$707

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.e

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.e. for $585 for rent of an apartment. Applicant left the apartment but the landlord stated she owed rent for another month for early termination of the lease.

$585

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.f

SOR debt 1.f. is to a collection agency for a credit card for $1,275. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments.

$1,275

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.g

SOR debt 1.g is for a car loan on a car that was voluntarily repossessed in March 2003. Applicant stated she made no payments on this account.

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.h

SOR debt 1.h. is to a collection agency for a department store for $677. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments.

$677

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.i

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.i. for medical expenses of $160. Applicant believed the expenses were covered by the medical insurance from her employer.

$160

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.j–1.k

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

1.l

SOR debt 1.l. for $42 on a returned check has been paid. She was unable to present any proof of payment.

$42

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.m

SOR debt 1.m. is for $21 to a veterinarian. Applicant states she never owed them any money since you have to pay your bill before leaving the veterinarian's office.

$21

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.n

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.n. in collection for a medical service for $39. She does not know about the debt and does not remember incurring any such debt.

$39

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.o

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.o. for $265 in collection for a cable company. She disputed her bill with the company but presented no documentation supporting the dispute.

$265

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.p

Applicant disputes SOR debt 1.p. of $143 in collection for an insurance company. She does not know the company or the debt and has not contacted anyone concerning the debt.

$143

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.q

SOR debt 1.q. is to a collection agency for a telephone company for $556. Applicant stated she has not made contact with any of these creditors in some time. All of the creditors indicated they wanted a lump sum payment, and Applicant was unable to afford the payments.

$556

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

1.r

Applicant disputes SOR allegation 1.r. of $2,363 for rent due on an apartment. Applicant lost her job and had to move from her apartment. She left before the lease expired and the landlord charged her two months rent for early termination of the lease.

$2,363

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.s

Applicant disputes SOR allegation 1.s. of $168 in collection. Applicant stated she had a zero balance on this account but did not present any documentation to verify the balance.

$168

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

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