Summary
The applicant, a 57-year-old information assurance systems engineer, faced security clearance concerns under Guideline F due to approximately $291,068 in delinquent debts and a 2014 home foreclosure. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or a comprehensive strategy to address his debts, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Telecommunications collection ($698) – Paid (1.a). Adverse judgment ($5,012) – No evidence of action (1.b). Adverse judgment ($1,810) – No evidence of action (1.c). Defaulted mortgage led to a September 2014 foreclosure on Applicant’s property, later reclaimed to satisfy Applicant’s debt – (no amount noted) - Successfully disputed (1.d). Real estate mortgage account past-due in the approximate amount of $280,858. In dispute (1.e). Telecommunication collection account ($2,398) – No evidence of action (1.f). Collection account for telecommunications entity ($172) - No evidence of action (1.g). Collection account ($80) – Paid (1.h). Collection account ($80) – Paid (1.i).
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(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial counseling; The applicant did not demonstrate a comprehensive strategy to address his delinquent debts; The applicant's payments on some debts were made only after the issuance of the SOR, indicating a lack of proactive financial management.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial counseling.
- The applicant did not demonstrate a comprehensive strategy to address his delinquent debts.
- The applicant's payments on some debts were made only after the issuance of the SOR, indicating a lack of proactive financial management.
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(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant provided scant information about his financial situation.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Resulting in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide evidence of circumstances beyond his control.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemNo evidence of financial counseling was provided.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsPayments made were insufficient to demonstrate a good-faith effort.
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant provided documentation indicating some debts were in dispute.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 17, 2017
- Answer filedMay 1, 2017Requested determination based on written record.
- Hearing held—
- Decision dateMar 23, 2018
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility
- Lack of Proactive Measures to Address Delinquent Debts