CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-16656.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-16656.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-16656.h1

deniedNov 30, 2006· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old quality assurance engineer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 17 delinquent debts totaling over $30,000, which included significant tax liens. Specifically, the applicant had accumulated over $5,000 in unpaid credit card debts since 1999 and faced three state and federal tax liens totaling $19,000, with one federal lien exceeding $11,000 and two state liens totaling over $2,800. A third state tax lien for $5,474 was filed in January 2006.

The applicant failed to report these tax liens and delinquent debts on his SF 86 application, filed on May 4, 2004, at Questions 36, 38, and 39. His claim of completing the SF 86 to the best of his ability was not considered a credible excuse for these omissions. The deliberate failure to disclose material facts on a security application raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Furthermore, the applicant provided no credible evidence of a plan to resolve the debts, nor did he offer sufficient justification for not reporting them during his security interview or in his response. The lack of mitigation for these financial obligations and the failure to accurately complete the SF 86 ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred 17 delinquent debts totaling over $30,000, including tax liens.
Applicant failed to report these debts on his SF 86, raising issues of judgment and reliability.
No credible evidence was provided to mitigate the security concerns regarding financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1appliedGuideline E: Questionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations.
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedGuideline F: History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedGuideline F: Evidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 23, 2006
Answer filedApr 3, 2006Applicant admitted most allegations.
Hearing held—Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Decision dateNov 30, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Significant Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Failure to Report Debts on SF 86 Under Guideline E
Lack of Credible Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns Regarding Financial Responsibility

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 all allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant's failure to report significant debts and tax liens on his security clearance application indicated questionable judgment and unreliability. The applicant's omissions were deemed deliberate, and no mitigating conditions were applicable, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to report tax liens filed within the past seven years and delinquent debts exceeding 90 and 180 days on his security clearance application (SF 86) filed May 4, 2004 at Questions 36, 38, and 39.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant's statement in his answer that he completed the SF 86 to the best of his ability is not a credible excuse for his failure to report the information.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 17 debts totaling over $30,000, including three tax liens amounting to $19,000, which he failed to report on his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant did not provide credible evidence of payments or plans to resolve these debts, leading to a denial of his security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred 17 debts of $30,000.00 that had become delinquent, and failed to report them at Questions 38 and 39 of his SF 86. $30,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant accumulated over $5,000.00 in credit card debts that had not been paid since 1999. $5,000	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Three of the debts were for state and federal tax liens totaling $19,000.00 that were not reported at Question 36. $19,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	He is paying on a federal tax lien that exceeds $11,000.00 filed in 2002 but is not paying on two state tax liens totaling over $2,800.00 filed in 1999 and 2002. $2,800	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	On January 18, 2006, a third tax lien was filed by the state for $5,474.00. $5,474	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	He offered no plan or evidence of doing so in either his answer or his statement made during his security interview.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	He failed to mitigate the security concerns submitting no credible evidence of payments, ability to resolve the debts, or credible excuses for not reporting them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Applicant's failure to report his tax liens at Question 36 and his financial delinquencies at Questions 38 and 39 on his SF 86 raises issues under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	He implies that the instruction he received was inadequate or erroneous but offered no evidence concerning the instruction he received.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.j	He knew of the federal and state tax liens at the time of filing and the debts were numerous enough that he must have been aware of many of them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.k–1.r	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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: November 30, 2006

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 05-16656

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant incurred 17 debts of $30,000.00 that had become delinquent, and failed to report them at Questions 38 and 39 of his SF 86. Three of the debts were for state and federal tax liens totaling $19,000.00 that were not reported at Question 36. He failed to mitigate the security concerns submitting no credible evidence of payments, ability to resolve the debts, or credible excuses for not reporting them. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On February 23, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, 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. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement dated April 3, 2006, Applicant responded to the allegations in the SOR admitting all but one of the financial allegations and denying all of the personal conduct allegations. He elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on July 11, 2006. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant filed no response and the case was assigned to me on August 29, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact: Applicant is a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor working as a quality assurance engineer. He has worked for his present employer since April 2004. He worked in a similar position for another defense contractor since 1989. He admitted all of the 17 specific allegations concerning delinquent debts totaling over $30,000.00. These included three state and federal tax liens exceeding $19,000.00. He denied all the personal conduct allegations relating to his failure to report tax liens filed within the past seven years and delinquent debts exceeding 90 and 180 days and on his security clearance application (SF 86) filed May 4, 2004 at Questions 36, 38, and 39.

Applicant accumulated over $5,000.00 in credit card debts that had not been paid since 1999. He declines to pay those debts since he challenges the way they were prepared that included penalties for late payments and interest charges. He is paying on a federal tax lien that exceeds $11,000.00 filed in 2002 but is not paying on two state tax liens totaling over $2,800.00 filed in 1999 and 2002. He intends to pay them but offered no plan or evidence of doing so in either his answer or his statement made during his security interview (Exhs. 5). In addition, on January 18, 2006, a third tax lien was filed by the state for $5,474.00 (Exhs. 7 and 9).

Applicant provided names and phone numbers of work references but no statements from any of them. He is a college graduate, married with four children.

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.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and

maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence

of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential

for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:

Applicant's delinquent debts prompted the allegations in the SOR under Guideline F in that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating conditions (MC) might include the fact that the person has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts (E2.A6.1.3.6.), and that the conditions resulting in the problems were largely beyond the person's control (E2.A6.1.3.3.). No evidence was offered by Applicant to establish that any mitigating condition was applicable. He is paying only on the federal tax lien. He has failed to establish the debts resulted from conditions beyond his control and admitted that he was not paying on any others; only that he intended to do so.

Applicant's failure to report his tax liens at Question 36 and his financial delinquencies at Questions 38 and 39 on his SF 86 raises issues under Guideline E that might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.). Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.) Applicant's statement in his answer that he completed the SF 86 to the best of his ability is not a credible excuse for his failure to report the information. He implies that the instruction he received was inadequate or erroneous but offered no evidence concerning the instruction he received. He knew of the federal and state tax liens at the time of filing and the debts were numerous enough that he must have been aware of many of them. Thus, I can only conclude that the omissions were deliberate. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

The "whole person" concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant elected not to have a hearing where such evidence might have been submitted. As such it is impossible for me to make an adequate whole person analysis. There is insufficient evidence to provide a valid analysis.

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against 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

Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.l.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.m.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.o.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.p.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.q.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.r.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

05-16656.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Francisco J. Mendez Jr., Esq. , Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-16656.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:51:16 PM] 05-16656.h1