Summary
The applicant, a 37-year-old single mother with three children, sought eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F due to financial considerations stemming from medical issues, an auto accident, and unemployment. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the trustworthiness concerns related to her delinquent debts and granted her eligibility for access to sensitive information.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 1.a is an $803 judgment entered in 2013 relating to a past-due medical debt for $803 (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b is a judgment for $4,574, filed against Applicant in 2016. It relates to an auto accident (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c is a judgment for $545. The Government conceded in its FORM that this judgment was released in June 2019 (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d is a past-due auto loan debt for $27,209. Applicant reported this debt on her e-QIP, noting that it was for the purchase of the vehicle she financed after totaling her first car in the accident (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e is a charged-off debt for $3,776. This is for unpaid rent for an old lease that ended in October 2015 (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f is a consumer debt in collection for $882 (1.f). SOR ¶ 1.g is a debt in collection, owed to a bank, for $546 (1.g). SOR ¶¶ 1.h-1.n are medical debts, totaling a combined $803. Applicant provided documentation with her Answer that these debts have been paid (1.h). SOR ¶ 1.o ($507) is a charged-off account to a bank, relating to an auto loan debt (1.o). SOR ¶ 1.p ($1,185) is a debt in collection relating to a cellphone contract (1.p). SOR ¶ 1.q is a cellphone debt in collection for $957 (1.q). SOR ¶ 1.r is an account placed in collection by a bank, for $584 (1.r). SOR ¶¶ 1.s, 1.t, and 1.u ($394, $74, and $74) are medical debts in collection. Applicant denied these debts because they are no longer on her credit report. She also said they were paid in early 2018 (1.s).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, including medical problems and unemployment; The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts and had made progress in paying them off; The applicant's long-term employment and efforts to maintain financial stability were considered favorably.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, including medical problems and unemployment.
- The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts and had made progress in paying them off.
- The applicant's long-term employment and efforts to maintain financial stability were considered favorably.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedDec 18, 2018
- Answer filedJan 14, 2019
- Hearing heldJan 21, 2021Second Decision on Remand
- Decision dateJan 21, 2021
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations
- Whole-person Concept in Trustworthiness Determinations