Summary
The applicant, a 38-year-old carpenter, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline J (criminal conduct) due to approximately $112,000 in delinquent debt, primarily from defaulted student loans, and a history of criminal offenses including larceny. The judge found that recent small payments toward student loans were insufficient to mitigate financial concerns, and the applicant's criminal conduct raised significant security risks.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.a). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.b). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.c). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.d). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.e). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.f). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.g). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.h). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.i). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.j). a $1,304 wireless telephone debt in collection (1.k). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.l). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.m). medical collection debts of $431 (1.n). a $205 utility debt in collection (1.o). a $1,099 judgment debt (1.p). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.q). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.r). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.s). a $5,934 charged-off credit card balance (1.t). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.u). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.v). Applicant owed $102,524 in delinquent student loan debt (1.w). medical collection debts of $522 (1.x). medical collection debts of $296 (1.y). Applicant was on probation until August 2017 for an April 2016 larceny offense (2.a). Applicant was given a 90 day suspended jail sentence for a February 2015 larceny offense (2.b). Applicant was arrested for failure to appear in December 2013 (2.c). Applicant was arrested for operation of a motor vehicle under suspension in October 2013 (2.d). Applicant was arrested for operation of a motor vehicle under suspension in April 2013 (2.e). Applicant was arrested for operation of a motor vehicle under suspension in February 2013 (2.f). Applicant was arrested for possession of marijuana in February 2013 (2.g). Applicant was arrested for operation of a motor vehicle under suspension in January 2012 (2.h).
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). The decision turned on the following: Applicant incurred approximately $112,000 in delinquent debt, primarily from defaulted student loans; Criminal conduct security concerns persisted due to larceny offenses in 2015 and 2016; Recent small payments toward two consolidated student loans were insufficient to mitigate financial security concerns.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant incurred approximately $112,000 in delinquent debt, primarily from defaulted student loans.
- Criminal conduct security concerns persisted due to larceny offenses in 2015 and 2016.
- Recent small payments toward two consolidated student loans were insufficient to mitigate financial security concerns.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness 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)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe debts were not incurred recently, but ongoing delinquency casts doubt on current reliability.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlLack of income was unclear whether due to business downturn or personal choices.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemApplicant presented no documentation to corroborate payments or counseling.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsNo evidence of good-faith efforts to address debts before they became delinquent.
Key Rule Quoted
“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 7, 2017
- Answer filedAug 2, 2017Incomplete response; additional response on 08/10/2017.
- Hearing heldNov 15, 2017Scheduled on 10/12/2017.
- Decision dateJan 25, 2018
Cite For
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J
- Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Delinquencies and Criminal History