ISCR Case 06-01360.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-01360.h1

deniedMar 27, 2007· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from approximately $27,500 in delinquent debts, primarily from credit cards, with a $650 judgment for homeowner's association dues and a $75 utility debt also noted. The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to take significant action to resolve them.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's falsification of responses on his security clearance application. He misrepresented his military disciplinary record and financial problems, and failed to list all delinquent debts. Additionally, he made contradictory statements during his hearing regarding his debts and the reasons for their omission from the application.

The judge determined that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his financial issues, personal conduct, or criminal conduct. The financial difficulties were longstanding and not solely attributable to circumstances beyond his control, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant accumulated approximately $27,500 in delinquent debts and took no significant action to pay them.
Applicant falsified responses on his security clearance application regarding his military disciplinary record and financial problems.
Applicant's financial difficulties were longstanding and not solely due to circumstances beyond his control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A6.1.3.2rejectedIt Was an Isolated Incident
E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
E2.A6.1.3.4rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem and There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2006
Answer filedOct 4, 2006
Hearing heldFeb 21, 2007
Decision dateMar 27, 2007

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Responses Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J.

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	Applicant falsified his responses to security clearance application questions concerning his military disciplinary record and financial problems.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant failed to list all his delinquent debts in response to Questions 38 and 39 on the SF-86.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant made several contradictory statements at his hearing about his debts, and why he did not list them on his SF-86.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant falsified his responses to security clearance application questions concerning his military disciplinary record and financial problems.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant failed to list all his delinquent debts in response to Questions 38 and 39 on the SF-86.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant made several contradictory statements at his hearing about his debts, and why he did not list them on his SF-86.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f, as November 1998.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, reflects a judgment of $650 entered in July 2004, against Applicant by the homeowner's association for dues owed on the original house purchased in his wife's name. $650	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, reflects a judgment of $650 entered in July 2004, against Applicant by the homeowner's association for dues owed on the original house purchased in his wife's name. (low confidence) $650	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.k	The debt in SOR ¶ 1.k is a $75 debt for utility services. $75	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.b

Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.c

Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.d

Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.e

Applicant admits to owing the delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 1.h, and 1j. The debts are mostly for credit cards, and total approximately $27,500.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.f

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f, as November 1998.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.h

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, reflects a judgment of $650 entered in July 2004, against Applicant by the homeowner's association for dues owed on the original house purchased in his wife's name.

$650

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

1.i

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i, reflects a judgment of $650 entered in July 2004, against Applicant by the homeowner's association for dues owed on the original house purchased in his wife's name. (low confidence)

$650

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

—

1.j

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.k

The debt in SOR ¶ 1.k is a $75 debt for utility services.

$75

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES