Summary
A 46-year-old security officer was denied eligibility for access to classified information due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant faced concerns related to approximately $23,000 in delinquent debts, which included a $5,537 deficiency after a vehicle repossession, a credit card account with a $948 balance that was $199 past due, and two other charged-off credit card accounts for $430 and $338.
Additional debts included a charged-off line of credit for $95, a telecommunications account in collection for about $1,000, and a fitness club lien for $1,457 from 2011. The applicant also had three judgments: one from an automobile dealer in 2000 for $600, another from a collection agency in 2017 for an $11,333 deficiency after an automobile repossession, and a medical provider judgment from 2013 for $1,176.
Despite admitting to the debts and engaging financial advisors, the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate resolution of these financial obligations. The applicant's financial management was deemed insufficient and lacking oversight, leading to the denial.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,000.
- The applicant failed to provide adequate documentation to demonstrate resolution of the debts.
- The applicant's financial management was deemed insufficient and lacked oversight.
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 Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Resulting in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling From a Legitimate Source
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Adhered to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Debts
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f was resolved in the applicant's favor.
Key Rule Quoted
“Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 4, 2018
- Answer filedOct 17, 2018
- Hearing heldMay 2, 2019
- Decision dateMay 5, 2020
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
- Importance of Documentation in Mitigating Financial Concerns
- Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Arise