Summary
The applicant, a 44-year-old male, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to unresolved financial issues, including delinquent debts and a history of bankruptcy. Despite some efforts to resolve certain debts, the administrative judge found insufficient evidence of financial stability and responsible management, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant acknowledged to the investigator that this debt in SOR ¶ 1.a ($26,346), was for an involuntary car repossession and there was likely a delinquent balance owed (1.a). Applicant disputed three judgments that were alleged (SOR ¶¶ 1.b-$4,991; 1.c-$1,959; and 1.d- $7,145) (1.b). These allegations are resolved in Applicant’s favor (1.c). These allegations are resolved in Applicant’s favor (1.d). Applicant stated that he is unable at this time to pay the charged-off debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g ($1,844), 1.i ($1,046), and 1.p ($1,346), but intends to in the future (1.e). Applicant denied the collection account in SOR ¶ 1.m ($620) stating in his SOR answer, 'this account was taken care of on 2/22/21 and closed on 3/25/2021.' (1.f). Applicant denied the collection account for telecommunication services in SOR ¶ 1.n ($362) indicating that 'it will be paid off on 7/22/21.' (1.g). Applicant provided a document to show that in October 2021, he made a payment agreement with the creditor for the collection account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h ($1,571) (1.h). Applicant made four phone payments (three payments of $115 and one of $119) from June 2021 to September 2021 for the charged-off store card account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l ($694) (1.i). Applicant did not provide documents to substantiate the account was paid. It is unresolved (1.j). Applicant provided a July 2021 payment agreement with the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.k ($1,013) to pay $50 a month (1.k). Applicant is resolving this debt (1.l). Applicant denied the collection account in SOR ¶ 1.m ($620) stating in his SOR answer, 'this account was taken care of on 2/22/21 and closed on 3/25/2021.' (1.m). Applicant denied the collection account for telecommunication services in SOR ¶ 1.n ($362) indicating that 'it will be paid off on 7/22/21.' (1.n). Applicant provided documents to show that he resolved the collection account for the store credit account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.o ($407) in July 2021 (1.o). Applicant stated that he is unable at this time to pay the charged-off debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g ($1,844), 1.i ($1,046), and 1.p ($1,346), but intends to in the future (1.p).
The judge denied 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 failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of financial stability; Numerous delinquent debts accumulated post-bankruptcy raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness; The applicant did not provide evidence of current finances or financial counseling.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of financial stability.
- Numerous delinquent debts accumulated post-bankruptcy raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.
- The applicant did not provide evidence of current finances or financial counseling.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant attributed financial problems to divorce and unemployment.
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant made payments towards some debts.
Key Rule Quoted
“Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 9, 2021
- Answer filedJul 7, 2021
- Hearing held—Decided on written record.
- Decision dateFeb 2, 2022
Cite For
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Stability Under Guideline F
- Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Financial Mitigation