Summary
The applicant, a 42-year-old former service member, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to approximately $33,624 in delinquent debts. The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to health issues and periods of unemployment but demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts. The judge found that the applicant acted responsibly and mitigated the security concerns, granting eligibility for a security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 1.a ($606) is a lien entered in February 2010. It was paid and released in August 2010. Her credit report from July 2015 verifies the release (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b ($263) was paid to the original creditor in November 2015 (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c ($321) was paid in June 2016 (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d ($1,475) was settled and paid (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e ($1,180) and ¶ 1.f ($157) are being paid and are no longer past due (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f ($157) is being paid and is no longer past due (1.f). SOR ¶ 1.g was paid in full in 2014 (1.g). The account in SOR ¶ 1.h was disputed and the collection account was paid (1.h). The account in SOR ¶ 1.i is being paid through a monthly automatic payment plan that began in June 2016 (1.i). Applicant is making payments toward the debt in SOR 1.j (1.j). Applicant stated she believed the account in SOR ¶ 1.k had been settled, but learned there was still a balance owed. In November 2016, she arranged an automatic withdrawal payment plan and is making $100 payments (1.k). Applicant stated that she believed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.l was paid. She could not find a phone number for the creditor. It is not on her May 2016 credit report and she indicated it was not on her current credit report (1.l). Applicant disputed the amount owed to the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.m, and had difficulty obtaining a copy of the payment agreement. The document she provided shows a plan to pay $50 a month and a payment made in November 2016 (1.m). Applicant disputes the amount alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n. She is making payments on the debt (1.n).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant resolved several delinquent debts and is making payments on others; The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, including health issues and unemployment; The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors and manage her finances.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant resolved several delinquent debts and is making payments on others.
- The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, including health issues and unemployment.
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors and manage her finances.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond Control
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedDispute of Legitimacy of Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 13, 2016
- Answer filedJul 11, 2016Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
- Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
- Decision dateAug 30, 2017
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Consideration of Circumstances Beyond an Applicant's Control
- Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts in Security Clearance Cases