Summary
The applicant, a 54-year-old former military service member, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to unresolved financial issues, including numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,000. Despite attributing his financial difficulties to circumstances beyond his control, such as a divorce and a cancer diagnosis, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 1.a is a $3,624 judgment filed against Applicant in 2011 (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b ($6,433), a debt in collection to a bank (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c ($4,933, to a financial services institution) (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d is a $1,004 debt in collection to a bank (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e ($850), a medical debt (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f ($611), a medical debt (1.f). SOR ¶ 1.g ($389), a medical debt (1.g). SOR ¶ 1.h ($349) and ¶ 1.i ($348) are debts to the same phone company but different collection agencies (1.h). SOR ¶ 1.i ($348) is a debt to a different collection agency for the same phone company (1.i). SOR ¶ 1.j ($317), a medical debt (1.j). SOR ¶ 1.k ($225), a medical debt (1.k). SOR ¶ 1.l ($216), a medical debt (1.l). SOR ¶ 1.m ($195), a medical debt (1.m). SOR ¶ 1.n ($195), a medical debt (1.n). SOR ¶ 1.o ($115, to a retailer) (1.o). SOR ¶ 1.p ($91), a medical debt (1.p). SOR ¶ 1.q ($79), a medical debt (1.q). SOR ¶ 1.r ($71), a medical debt (1.r). SOR ¶ 1.s ($65), a medical debt (1.s). SOR ¶ 1.t ($63), a medical debt (1.t). SOR ¶ 1.u ($46), a medical debt (1.u).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19(a), F.19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20(b), F.20(d). The decision turned on the following: Applicant did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F; He failed to establish a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or resolve debts; Ongoing, unpaid debts were viewed as evidence of a continuing course of conduct.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F.
- He failed to establish a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or resolve debts.
- Ongoing, unpaid debts were viewed as evidence of a continuing course of conduct.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- F.20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant attributed his financial problems to limited income after moving and a cancer diagnosis.
- F.20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsApplicant did not establish a track record of steady payments towards his creditors.
Key Rule Quoted
“No one has a right to a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 15, 2016
- Answer filedNov 29, 2016
- Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
- Decision dateNov 28, 2017
Cite For
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
- Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Consideration of Circumstances Beyond Control in Financial Mitigation