Summary
A 34-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited three delinquent debts: one for $1,430, settled for $635 in February 2018; another for $12,160, settled in March 2018; and a third for $885, settled in December 2016. Disqualifying conditions F.19(a), F.19(c), and E.16(a) were initially raised.
The judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. Regarding financial issues, she demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her delinquent debts, settling several before the Statement of Reasons was issued. Her current financial situation is stable, with no new delinquent debts.
For personal conduct, the applicant credibly denied intentionally providing false information on her security questionnaires, attributing inaccuracies to misunderstanding rather than deceit. Mitigating conditions F.20(a), F.20(b), F.20(d), and E.15 were applied, leading to the decision to grant her eligibility for access to sensitive information.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her delinquent debts, settling several before the SOR was issued.
- The applicant credibly denied intentionally providing false information on her security questionnaires, attributing inaccuracies to misunderstanding rather than deceit.
- The applicant's current financial situation is stable, with no new delinquent debts accrued.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- F.20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
- F.20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
- E.15rejectedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and RegulationsThe judge concluded that the applicant did not intentionally falsify the questionnaires.
Key Rule Quoted
“The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 30, 2016
- Answer filedDec 19, 2016Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing heldFeb 14, 2018
- Decision dateMay 18, 2018
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Trustworthiness Concerns