Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 59-year-old employee of a federal contractor, faced concerns under Guideline F for financial considerations and Guideline E for personal conduct. The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to medical issues and poor financial decisions related to an ex-husband, but her current financial status is strong with a combined income of $360,000 and all debts resolved. The judge concluded that granting eligibility for a security clearance is consistent with national interest.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Additionally, under Guideline E, the ASOR alleged that Applicant falsified material facts in her April 2019 security clearance application (SCA), in response to Section 13A, when she failed to state that she had been removed from her company’s BD. Additionally, the ASOR alleged she falsified material facts when she failed to list in her April 2019 SCA, in response to Section 28, that she was a party in a civil lawsuit within the last seven years (2.a). The Government failed to establish that Applicant deliberately falsified or provided misleading answers on her 2019 SCA as alleged in SOR 2.b and 2.c (2.b). Vehicle Repossession Deficiency-$12,558 (1.a). Vehicle Repossession Deficiency-$9,559 (1.b). Medical Debt-$5,758 (1.c). School Debt-$4,350 (1.d). Three Medical Debts assigned to the same collection company-$1,011; $681; $180 (1.e). Medical Debt assigned to a collection company-$437 (1.g). Consumer Debt assigned to a collection company-$257 (1.h). Debt assigned to a collection company-$152 (1.i). Vehicle Repossession Deficiency-$8,108 (1.j). Three Medical Debts assigned to the same collection company-$1,004; $432; $192 (1.k). Two Medical Debts assigned to the same collection company-$213; $175 (1.m). Debt assigned to a collection company-$89 (1.q).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 19(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant mitigated financial considerations by demonstrating a strong current financial status and resolving all debts; The judge found that personal conduct concerns were not established, as the applicant's actions were vindicated by a court ruling; The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to medical issues and poor decisions related to an ex-husband, which were beyond her control.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant mitigated financial considerations by demonstrating a strong current financial status and resolving all debts.
• The judge found that personal conduct concerns were not established, as the applicant's actions were vindicated by a court ruling.
• The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to medical issues and poor decisions related to an ex-husband, which were beyond her control.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedOct 15, 2021
• Answer filedOct 20, 2021
• Hearing heldApr 11, 2022The hearing was convened as scheduled.
• Decision dateJul 18, 2022

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F Due to Medical Issues
• Lack of Established Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
• Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Determinations