Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 54-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to past-due debts. He successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that he had addressed all debts and that future financial issues were unlikely. The judge granted the security clearance based on the applicant's responsible actions and the resolution of his financial obligations.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor A, as the result of a voluntary car repossession, in the amount of about $13,901. He purchased an automobile for his ex-girlfriend, a real-estate agent who fell on hard times in 2008 with the collapse of the housing market. He has settled this debt for $7,000, as evidenced by a letter from the creditor; and as such, it does not appear on Applicant’s most recent October 2017 credit reports (1.a). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor B, as the result of credit card debt, in the amount of about $9,497. Unbeknownst to Applicant, his sons’ mother opened a credit card account in Applicant’s name, which she defaulted on. As Creditor B charged-off this debt, said creditor would not accept any payments from Applicant. Instead, Creditor B issued an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1099-C, writing off said debt as a business loss, and for Applicant to consider as income when he next files his Federal income taxes (1.b). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor C, as the result of an apartment rental, in the amount of about $5,825. Applicant’s former girlfriend locked him out of their apartment, but left without paying the past-due rent. This debt has been settled in full, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor C’s “Collection Representative.” (1.c). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor D, as the result of credit card debt, in the amount of about $819. Applicant has satisfied this debt, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor D (1.d). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor E, as the result of two internet provider debts, in an amount totaling about $280. Applicant has paid in full these debts, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor D’s “Debt Collector.” (1.e). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor F, as the result of a TV provider debt, in the amount of about $107. Applicant has paid in full this debt, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor F’s “Debt Collector.” (1.f). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor G, as the result of a phone provider debt, in the amount of about $70. Applicant has paid in full this debt, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor G’s “Debt Collector.” (1.g). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor H, as the result of a medical bill debt, in the amount of about $338. This debt has been canceled; as it was paid by Applicant’s medical insurance, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor H (1.h). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor I, as the result of another phone provider debt, in the amount of about $142. Applicant has paid in full this debt, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor I’s “Debt Collector.” (1.i).

The judge granted 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(e). The decision turned on the following: Applicant addressed all past-due debts and provided evidence of settlements; Future financial problems are unlikely due to changes in personal circumstances; The applicant successfully disputed a medical bill that was covered by insurance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• Applicant addressed all past-due debts and provided evidence of settlements.
• Future financial problems are unlikely due to changes in personal circumstances.
• The applicant successfully disputed a medical bill that was covered by insurance.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJun 15, 2017
• Answer filedJul 27, 2017
• Hearing heldNov 7, 2017
• Decision dateAug 16, 2018

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
• Resolution of Debts as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions
• Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations