Summary
The applicant, a 36-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including approximately $75,000 in past-due debts. Despite some good-faith efforts to address minor debts, the applicant failed to demonstrate effective mitigation for the majority of his financial obligations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $17,106, for 'a motorcycle,' which he purchased in December of 2019, more than five years ago (1.a). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $1,860, for 'a computer,' which he purchased in about 2018, about eight years ago (1.b). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $3,330, for 'a fridge,' which he purchased in about 2022, about four years ago (1.c). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt is to Creditor D in the amount of about $1,274, for cellular phones (1.d). Applicant has an admitted past-due, credit card debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $816 (1.e). Applicant has an admitted past-due, credit card debt to Creditor F in the amount of about $647, for jewelry (1.f). Applicant has an admitted past-due, credit card debt to Creditor G in the amount of about $626 (1.g). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor H in the amount of about $561, for a cellular phone (1.h). Applicant has settled for $218 and paid, the admitted past-due $291 debt to Creditor I (1.i). Applicant has paid, the admitted past-due $120 debt to Creditor J (1.j). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor K in the amount of about $38,069, for a 2024 motor vehicle repossession (1.k). Applicant has an admitted past-due debt to Creditor L in the amount of about $10,272, for another 2024 motor vehicle repossession (1.l).
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(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to significant past-due debts totaling approximately $75,000; The applicant failed to demonstrate effective mitigation efforts for most of his debts, with many remaining unresolved; The applicant did not seek bankruptcy protection despite his financial difficulties.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to significant past-due debts totaling approximately $75,000.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate effective mitigation efforts for most of his debts, with many remaining unresolved.
- The applicant did not seek bankruptcy protection despite his financial difficulties.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant demonstrated good-faith efforts to address some minor 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 issuedMar 6, 2025
- Answer filedMay 19, 2025
- Hearing heldDec 18, 2025Originally scheduled for September 3, 2025, but rescheduled due to applicant's requests and furloughs.
- Decision dateJan 28, 2026
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
- Failure to Demonstrate Effective Mitigation of Financial Issues
- Good-faith Efforts in Addressing Minor Debts Under Guideline F