Summary
The applicant, a 43-year-old solution developer, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $443,600, including several default judgments. Despite admitting to most allegations, the judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: judgment for $10,115, filed in November 2010. This is a default judgment for a delinquent credit-card account (1.a). judgment for $44,999, filed in November 2011. This is a default judgment for a delinquent mortgage loan on a rental property (1.b). judgments for $60,981, filed in February 2012; $42,547, filed in August 2013; $35,081, filed in August 2013; $42,200, filed in January 2015; and $94,283, filed in June 2015. These are default judgments for delinquent mortgage loans on rental properties (1.c). collection account for $1,129. This debt is not reflected on the credit reports in the record. This allegation is not supported by the evidence (1.j). utility bills placed for collection of $364, $292, $88, and $73 (two bills). These debts were incurred when Applicant's tenants failed to transfer the accounts to their names or failed to pay the bills (1.k). collection account for $35,706. This debt is a delinquent credit-card account (1.l). collection account for $32,575. This debt is a delinquent student loan being collected by garnishment (1.m). credit-card account charged off for $8,605. In the February 2017 PSI, Applicant told an investigator that he did not intend to pay this debt because it was charged off (1.n). debt to credit union charged off for $285. This debt is an overdraft charge (1.o). credit-card account placed for collection of $916. In the February 2017 PSI, Applicant acknowledged this debt (1.p). telecommunications account placed for collection of $49. This debt is reflected in the October 2016 credit report (1.t).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $443,600, including several default judgments; The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve or mitigate the debts despite being gainfully employed for four years; The applicant did not submit evidence of financial counseling or good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $443,600, including several default judgments.
- The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve or mitigate the debts despite being gainfully employed for four years.
- The applicant did not submit evidence of financial counseling or good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's delinquent debts are numerous and recent.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile some conditions were beyond the applicant's control, he did not act responsibly to address his debts.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling From a Legitimate SourceThe applicant submitted no evidence of financial counseling.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsInvoluntary measures do not constitute good-faith efforts.
- AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide evidence disputing the debts.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 5, 2018
- Answer filedAug 22, 2018
- Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record without a hearing.
- Decision dateFeb 1, 2019
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility