Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 38-year-old aircraft maintenance and weapons loading specialist with a history of military service, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $37,894 in delinquent debt. The applicant demonstrated a commitment to addressing his financial issues through repayment plans and financial counseling, leading to a favorable outcome in the security clearance decision.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant denied having delinquent accounts on his SCA (2.a). Applicant answered 'no' when asked whether he was currently delinquent on any federal debt for which he was the sole debtor (2.b). Balance due on voluntarily repossessed vehicle ($11,402) – In repayment. This debt from 2013 or 2014 has been in repayment for the five months preceding the hearing (1.a). Collection account ($2,423) – Paid. This debt is related to a government overpayment. The balance was brought to $0 in November 2016, before the SOR was issued (1.b). Collection account ($1,300) – Paid. This balance owed on a government overpayment was also paid in or before November 2016, before the SOR was issued (1.c). Local government collection ($792) – Paid/In Dispute. Applicant does not recognize this account, but he started making payments on it in February 2017 (1.e). Collection account ($150) – Paid. This balance owed to a governmental entity was reduced to $0 in or before November 2016, before the SOR was issued (1.g). Charged-off account ($9,213) – Seeking Validation/In Negotiation – In February 2017, Applicant wrote this entity a letter requesting validation of any outstanding debt balance related to this voluntary repossession (1.i). Collection account ($7,700) – Disputed/Resolved. After seeking validation, this collection agency could not validate the obligation. Consequently, it has stopped collection on this matter (1.k). Telecommunications collection ($948) – In Dispute – Applicant denies ever having service with this entity and has written a letter to it for validation of the debt (1.l). Collection account ($867) – In Dispute – Applicant believes this account is due to fraudulent charges and has disputed it (1.m).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 19(e). 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 actively addressed and repaid several delinquent debts before the SOR was issued; The applicant received financial counseling and adhered to a budget, demonstrating responsible financial behavior; The applicant's negative answer on the SCA was found to be unintentional and not indicative of fraud or intent to mislead.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant actively addressed and repaid several delinquent debts before the SOR was issued.
• The applicant received financial counseling and adhered to a budget, demonstrating responsible financial behavior.
• The applicant's negative answer on the SCA was found to be unintentional and not indicative of fraud or intent to mislead.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJan 7, 2017
• Answer filedMar 1, 2017
• Hearing heldJul 26, 2017
• Decision dateMar 28, 2018

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Proactive Measures Taken by the Applicant
• Unintentional Misrepresentation on a Security Clearance Application Not Constituting Fraud Under Guideline E
• The Importance of Financial Counseling in Addressing Security Concerns.