Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old surgical technician with a history of financial difficulties, sought eligibility for access to sensitive information under Guidelines E and F. While he mitigated financial concerns by engaging in credit counseling and making payments on debts, he failed to mitigate personal conduct concerns due to intentional omissions and false statements regarding his financial status on his security clearance application. Consequently, his application for a public trust position was denied.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: During Applicant’s April 2017 background interview, he was asked whether he had any adverse financial issues to report. Applicant told the investigator that he did not have any adverse financial issues, as he also indicated on his SCA. The investigator confronted Applicant with several delinquent accounts reflected in his March 2017 credit report. Applicant stated that his financial problems started approximately four years ago. His indebtedness is due to him living beyond his means and not making wise decisions with his credit. Applicant intentionally did not disclose any adverse financial information on his SCA, as required. When asked by the investigator whether he had any adverse financial issues to report during his April 2017 background interview, he falsely stated he had nothing to report. Actually, he was aware that he had some delinquent accounts since he checked his credit in early 2017 (2.a). failed to timely pay a credit union credit card account referred for collection in the amount of $7,222 (1.a). an account placed with a collection agency in the amount of $5,741 (1.b). A delinquent car loan account in the amount of $4,193 (1.c). another collection company account in the amount of $654 (1.d). two accounts that had been placed with collection agencies in the amount of $511 (1.e). two accounts that had been placed with collection agencies in the amount of $358 (1.f). an insurance-related account for $75 (1.g).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.a, E2.c. The judge applied mitigating conditions F2.a, F2.c, F2.d. The decision turned on the following: The applicant intentionally omitted adverse financial information from his security clearance application; He provided false statements during his background interview regarding his financial delinquencies.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant engaged a credit counseling company to address his financial issues.
- He made payments on several debts and demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial problems.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.aappliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- E2.cappliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
- F2.arejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
- F2.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
- F2.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 13, 2017
- Answer filedNov 1, 2017Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decided on the written record.
- Decision dateMay 25, 2018
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Credibility Issues Arising From Intentional Omissions in Security Clearance Applications