ISCR Case 17-02089.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02089.h1

deniedJan 31, 2018· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a public trust position due to financial considerations under Guideline F, stemming from multiple unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $16,448. The administrative judge found she failed to demonstrate financial responsibility or mitigate her financial difficulties.

Specific allegations included an $8,130 judgment, which the applicant inconsistently claimed was for a vehicle purchased by her ex-husband, denied knowledge of, or stated she was "still fighting in court," without providing supporting documentation. Additionally, two utility accounts with balances of $644 and $477 remained unresolved, as the applicant's claims of payment arrangements or full payment lacked documentation. One debt, an apartment lease with an unpaid balance of $1,245.12, was settled for $374, resolving that specific account.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of multiple delinquent debts and her failure to provide documentation supporting claims of resolution or mitigation. There was no evidence of a budget, repayment plans, or financial counseling to indicate control over her financial problems, nor did she demonstrate a good-faith effort to address her delinquent accounts or engage with creditors.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts and failed to provide documentation to support her claims of resolution or mitigation.
There was no evidence of a budget, repayment plans, or financial counseling to indicate that her financial problems were under control.
The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to address her delinquent accounts or engage with creditors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(e)raisedConsistent Spending Beyond One's Means

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Occurred so Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 30, 2017
Answer filedJul 19, 2017Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateJan 31, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Documentation in Resolving Financial Issues
Evaluation of Trustworthiness Based on Financial Behavior and Responsibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a judgment in the amount of $8,130 that Applicant initially said was for the vehicle her ex-husband purchased in her name, and that she was making payments when she could afford to do so. During her OPM interview, she claimed to know nothing about the judgment. In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the account, stating it was from her ex-husband, and that she was “still fighting in court.” She failed to submit any documentation to support her contentions: the account was not her account; she had made any efforts with the creditor to resolve the account; she had been making payments; or the matter was in litigation. The account has not been resolved. $8,130	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	an apartment lease with an unpaid balance of $1,245.12 On March 23, 2017, Applicant settled the account for less than the full balance by paying the collection agent $374, and the remaining $871.33 was cancelled. The account has been resolved. $1,245	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	two utility accounts with unpaid balances of $644 and $477. During her OPM interview, Applicant claimed to have no knowledge of the larger account, but agreed that the smaller account was hers, and she indicated she would pay it when she has the funds to do so. In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant contended that she had made payment arrangements regarding the larger account, and that she had paid the smaller account. She failed to submit any documentation, such as payment agreements, cancelled checks, receipts, or account statements, to support her contentions that there were payment arrangements made with one creditor, or that the other creditor had been paid. In the absence of such documentation, I conclude the accounts remain unresolved. $1,121	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

a judgment in the amount of $8,130 that Applicant initially said was for the vehicle her ex-husband purchased in her name, and that she was making payments when she could afford to do so. During her OPM interview, she claimed to know nothing about the judgment. In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the account, stating it was from her ex-husband, and that she was “still fighting in court.” She failed to submit any documentation to support her contentions: the account was not her account; she had made any efforts with the creditor to resolve the account; she had been making payments; or the matter was in litigation. The account has not been resolved.

$8,130

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.d

an apartment lease with an unpaid balance of $1,245.12 On March 23, 2017, Applicant settled the account for less than the full balance by paying the collection agent $374, and the remaining $871.33 was cancelled. The account has been resolved.

$1,245

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.e

two utility accounts with unpaid balances of $644 and $477. During her OPM interview, Applicant claimed to have no knowledge of the larger account, but agreed that the smaller account was hers, and she indicated she would pay it when she has the funds to do so. In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant contended that she had made payment arrangements regarding the larger account, and that she had paid the smaller account. She failed to submit any documentation, such as payment agreements, cancelled checks, receipts, or account statements, to support her contentions that there were payment arrangements made with one creditor, or that the other creditor had been paid. In the absence of such documentation, I conclude the accounts remain unresolved.

$1,121

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES