CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-01928.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-01928.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-01928.h1

deniedOct 3, 2006· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 26-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 unresolved financial difficulties and the intentional falsification of information on her security clearance application.

The applicant provided false material information in response to Question 28, incorrectly stating she was not over 90 days delinquent on any debt and had not been over 180 days delinquent in the past seven years. Her financial record included numerous past-due and charged-off debts, some dating back to 2001, with balances ranging from $107.00 to $6,936.00. While some debts had partial payments or settlement agreements, many remained outstanding with little to no recent contact with creditors.

The judge determined that the applicant's long history of not meeting financial obligations, coupled with her intentional dishonesty on the application, undermined her trustworthiness. Given the significant and unlikely-to-improve nature of her financial issues, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a long history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant intentionally falsified material information on her security clearance application.
Applicant's financial difficulties are significant and unlikely to improve.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

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 issuedMar 29, 2006
Answer filedApr 17, 2006
Hearing heldSep 6, 2006
Decision dateOct 3, 2006

Cite For

Denial Based on Long-standing Financial Difficulties
Intentional Falsification of Information on Security Clearance Application
Impact of Financial Issues on Trustworthiness Under Security Clearance Standards

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 personal conduct concerns related to falsification of information on a security clearance application and a history of financial difficulties. The applicant's intentional falsification of material facts and inability to meet financial obligations led to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant provided false material information in response to Question 28 when she stated that she was not then over 90 days delinquent on any debt and during the previous seven years she 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 (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.a	Applicant has a long history of not meeting her financial obligations, and that she is unable to satisfy her debts.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (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 judge found that the applicant has a long history of financial difficulties and is unable to satisfy her debts, leading to a denial of her security clearance. The applicant's financial issues are significant and likely to persist, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant settled this debt with the creditor some time ago. As part of the settlement, applicant agreed to pay the creditor $50.00 per month. Applicant made the agreed-upon payments until a few months ago. She still owes the creditor approximately $600.00. $600	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits this $491.00 is past-due. She has had no recent contact with the creditor. $491	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant is indebted this creditor in the amount of $161.00. The debt was placed for collection in 2001. Applicant has had no contact with the creditor or collection agency. $161	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	This $148.00 debt is past-due. It was charged off by the creditor in 2003. $148	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	This $127.00 debt was charged off in 2003. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. $127	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	This $449.00 debt was charged off in 2003. Applicant has had no contact with the creditor since then. $449	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	This $107.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. $107	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	This $223.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant testified that she made a $50.00 payment to the creditor about a month ago and now only owes the creditor $150.00. $223	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	This $658.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. $658	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Applicant had two accounts with this creditor, both of which went delinquent. The total debt that was placed for collection was $866.00. Applicant testified that she made one payment to this creditor a couple of months ago. $866	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	This $299.00 debt went delinquent and was placed for collection in January 2005. There is no credible evidence that applicant has made any payments to this creditor since then. $299	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	This $6,936.00 debt is past-due. $6,936	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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

APPEARANCES

DATE: October 3, 2006 In Re: ----------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 06-01928 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant's financial difficulties are long-standing and unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On March 29, 2006, 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, (as administratively reissued on April 20, 1999), 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 April 17, May 10, and June 8, 2006. The case was assigned to me on July 28, 2006. A Notice of Hearing was issued on August 18, 2006, and the hearing was held on September 6, 2006. The transcript was received on September 25, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 26 year old employee of a defense contractor. SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant settled this debt with the creditor some time ago. As part of the settlement, applicant agreed to pay the creditor $50.00 per month. Applicant made the agreed-upon payments until a few months ago. She still owes the creditor approximately $600.00. SOR Allegation 1b: Applicant admits this $491.00 is past-due. She has had no recent contact with the creditor. SOR Allegations 1c, 1d, 1e, 1mand 1n: These allegations, all of which claim applicant is indebted to "an unknown creditor" for medical accounts placed for collection, are found for applicant. SOR Allegation 1f: Applicant is indebted this creditor in the amount of $161.00. The debt was placed for collection in 2001. Applicant has had no contact with the creditor or collection agency. SOR Allegations 1g: This $148.00 debt is past-due. It was charged off by the creditor in 2003. SOR Allegation 1h: This $127.00 debt was charged off in 2003. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. SOR Allegation 1i: This $449.00 debt was charged off in 2003. Applicant has had no contact with the creditor since then. SOR Allegation 1j: This $107.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. SOR Allegation 1k: This $223.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant testified that she made a $50.00 payment to the creditor about a month ago and now only owes the creditor $150.00. SOR Allegations 1l: This $658.00 debt was charged off in 2004. Applicant has made no payments to the creditor since then. SOR Allegations 1o and 1p: Applicant had two accounts with this creditor, both of which went delinquent. The total debt that was placed for collection was $866.00. Applicant testified that she made one payment to this creditor a couple of months ago. SOR Allegation 1q: This $299.00 debt went delinquent and was placed for collection in January 2005. There is no credible evidence that applicant has made any payments to this creditor since then. SOR Allegation 1r: This $6,936.00 debt is past-due. Applicant testified that she intends to satisfy all of her debts. She further testified that she usually has no money left over at the end of each month. Applicant completed and executed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing on August 17, 2005 (Exhibit 1). She provided false material information in response to Question 28 when she stated that (1) she was not then over 90 days delinquent on any debt and (2) during the previous seven years she had not been over 180 days delinquent on any debt. In response to interrogatories sent to her by DOHA in 2006 (Exhibit 4), applicant stated the following about the falsifications: I wasn't sure about them [the debts] I guess I lost track, and I have been paying on some a little at a time. I wasn't sure of them, but I do plan on taking care of them. At the hearing she testified that she doesn't "have a clue" why she answered Question 28 the way she did (TR at 35). Based on the evidence presented, I find that applicant's falsification was intentional.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant has a long history of not meeting her financial obligations, and that she is unable to satisfy her debts. These facts require 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). Although applicant testified credibly about problems in her marriage that contributed to her financial difficulties, she failed to offer any specific details that could possibly support application of itigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.3 (the conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control). And, Mitigating Condition E2.A6.1.3.6 (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) clearly is not applicable. Based on the evidence in the record, applicant is experiencing significant financial difficulties, which are likely to continue. As such, her situation fits squarely within the Financial Guideline Concern expressed in the Directive (E2.A6.1.1.1 - An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.). Based on this fact, I have no choice but to conclude that it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest for applicant to have access to classified information. With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsification of material facts on the Questionnaire is 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 falsification requires 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

FOOTNOTES

06-01928.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Goldstein, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/06-01928.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:53:01 PM] 06-01928.h1