ISCR Case 17-04109.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04109.h1

grantedOct 29, 2018· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old contract employee and over-the-road truck driver was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). These concerns stemmed from financial difficulties largely attributed to a contentious divorce. The applicant faced allegations regarding several debts, including an unpaid satellite television account, a septic system judgment, two motor vehicle loans, two medical accounts, and child support arrearages.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating a commitment to resolving his debts. For instance, a satellite TV debt of $296 was removed from his credit report after he disputed it, claiming his ex-wife restored the account without his permission. A $1,566 septic system judgment and a $17,653 motor vehicle loan judgment, both linked to his ex-wife's responsibilities under the divorce order, were no longer listed on his recent credit reports. He also paid off a $200 medical account, though he initially disputed responsibility.

Significant progress was also shown with a $21,392 child support arrearage, with the applicant making regular $600 monthly payments since November 2017. While a $5,487 motor vehicle loan for a truck his ex-wife retained and a $1,113 medical account remained unresolved or unclear, the judge found that the applicant's overall efforts, coupled with evidence from the divorce decree supporting his claims about his ex-wife's financial actions, were sufficient to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated significant progress in addressing his financial obligations.
The applicant's financial difficulties were largely attributed to his ex-wife's actions and mismanagement during their marriage.
The applicant provided evidence of a commitment to resolve his debts and maintain financial stability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.4raisedUnexplained Affluence

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.3appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“An administrative judge need not view the guidelines as inflexible, ironclad rules of law.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 3, 2018
Answer filedJan 25, 2018Applicant responded to the SOR.
Hearing heldJul 26, 2018
Decision dateOct 29, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Ex-spouse's Actions on Financial Obligations
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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	This is a satellite television account with an unpaid balance of $296. Applicant contended that when he and his ex-wife separated, while she was working for that particular satellite company, he cancelled the account and returned the equipment to the company. However, she restored the account in his name without his knowledge or permission. Applicant disputed the account with TransUnion in June 2018, and after an investigation, TransUnion informed him by e-mail that the debt was being removed from his credit report. The account has been resolved. $296	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	This is a septic system installation or repair account on the residence where Applicant’s ex-wife was residing with an unpaid balance of $1,566 that was filed as a judgment in August 2012. Applicant contended that because his ex-wife remained in the residence, under the terms of the Divorce Order, she was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for the charges. Applicant informed the creditor of his ex-wife’s responsibility for the debt, but the creditor did not care about her responsibility, and rather than placing a lien on the property, they obtained a judgment against Appellant. While the judgment was listed in Applicant’s 2016 credit report, it is not listed in any of his subsequent credit reports. Moreover, since the court ordered that Applicant’s ex-wife was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges, Applicant should not be held legally responsible for the debt. $1,566	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	This is a motor vehicle loan for a pickup truck (driven by Applicant’s ex-wife) in the amount of $35,000 that Applicant purchased in 2001, but for which he was unable to continue making payments, so he voluntarily relinquished it to the lender in 2005. In June 2013, the lender filed a $17,653 judgment against Applicant. Applicant informed the creditor of his intention to resolve the account once the marital residence is sold, but the attorneys for the lender were disinterested, and simply wanted to be paid the full amount. Applicant considers the debt to be a marital debt for which both he and his ex-wife are responsible, and he intended to pay his half of the debt from the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. When Applicant spoke with the creditor on August 10, 2018, after having mailed them a copy of the Divorce Order, the representative of the creditor stated the debt would be removed from Applicant and assigned to his ex-wife. Applicant did not submit any statement from the creditor to confirm what he claimed they told him. Nevertheless, while the judgment was listed in Applicant’s 2016 credit report, it is not listed in any of his subsequent credit reports. Since the court ordered that Applicant’s ex-wife was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges, Applicant should not be held legally responsible for the debt. $17,653	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	This is a medical account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $200 that was opened in October 2012, the same month as his divorce from his ex-wife. Although Applicant did not believe the account was his responsibility, when he learned about it, he paid it off. However, he failed to submit any documents to support his claim that the account has been resolved. $200	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	This is a motor vehicle loan for a pickup truck in the amount of $10,945 that Applicant purchased for his ex-wife in 2009 or 2010. She retained the vehicle when they were divorced, and under their divorce decree, she was to maintain the vehicle and make the monthly payments. She failed to do so, and at some unspecified point in late 2016, the vehicle was involuntarily repossessed, leaving an unpaid and past-due balance of $5,487. Applicant contended that because his ex-wife kept custody of the vehicle, under the terms of the divorce decree, she was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges. $5,487	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	This is a child-support arrearage with an unpaid balance of $21,392. In mid-2015, Applicant decided to get back on track with his child-support payments, and he tried to pay the court $600 to $900 on a monthly basis to cover the current obligation of $495, along with an arrearage amount. In 2017, his payments were rather sporadic. But since November 2017, months before the SOR was issued, Applicant has been making regular monthly $600 child-support payments to the state, totaling $5,400. The account is in the process of being resolved. $21,392	For Applicant	Child Support Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	This is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $1,113 that was placed for collection in January 2014. During his interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in January 2017, Applicant said he knew nothing about the account, but that he would look into it and if it is his responsibility, he would set up payments to resolve it. Applicant did not indicate if he has taken any actions regarding this account, and it remains unclear if the account was opened by his ex-wife after their divorce or if the account is actually Applicant’s responsibility. $1,113	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

This is a satellite television account with an unpaid balance of $296. Applicant contended that when he and his ex-wife separated, while she was working for that particular satellite company, he cancelled the account and returned the equipment to the company. However, she restored the account in his name without his knowledge or permission. Applicant disputed the account with TransUnion in June 2018, and after an investigation, TransUnion informed him by e-mail that the debt was being removed from his credit report. The account has been resolved.

$296

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

1.b

This is a septic system installation or repair account on the residence where Applicant’s ex-wife was residing with an unpaid balance of $1,566 that was filed as a judgment in August 2012. Applicant contended that because his ex-wife remained in the residence, under the terms of the Divorce Order, she was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for the charges. Applicant informed the creditor of his ex-wife’s responsibility for the debt, but the creditor did not care about her responsibility, and rather than placing a lien on the property, they obtained a judgment against Appellant. While the judgment was listed in Applicant’s 2016 credit report, it is not listed in any of his subsequent credit reports. Moreover, since the court ordered that Applicant’s ex-wife was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges, Applicant should not be held legally responsible for the debt.

$1,566

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.c

This is a motor vehicle loan for a pickup truck (driven by Applicant’s ex-wife) in the amount of $35,000 that Applicant purchased in 2001, but for which he was unable to continue making payments, so he voluntarily relinquished it to the lender in 2005. In June 2013, the lender filed a $17,653 judgment against Applicant. Applicant informed the creditor of his intention to resolve the account once the marital residence is sold, but the attorneys for the lender were disinterested, and simply wanted to be paid the full amount. Applicant considers the debt to be a marital debt for which both he and his ex-wife are responsible, and he intended to pay his half of the debt from the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. When Applicant spoke with the creditor on August 10, 2018, after having mailed them a copy of the Divorce Order, the representative of the creditor stated the debt would be removed from Applicant and assigned to his ex-wife. Applicant did not submit any statement from the creditor to confirm what he claimed they told him. Nevertheless, while the judgment was listed in Applicant’s 2016 credit report, it is not listed in any of his subsequent credit reports. Since the court ordered that Applicant’s ex-wife was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges, Applicant should not be held legally responsible for the debt.

$17,653

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

1.d

This is a medical account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $200 that was opened in October 2012, the same month as his divorce from his ex-wife. Although Applicant did not believe the account was his responsibility, when he learned about it, he paid it off. However, he failed to submit any documents to support his claim that the account has been resolved.

$200

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied

—

1.e

This is a motor vehicle loan for a pickup truck in the amount of $10,945 that Applicant purchased for his ex-wife in 2009 or 2010. She retained the vehicle when they were divorced, and under their divorce decree, she was to maintain the vehicle and make the monthly payments. She failed to do so, and at some unspecified point in late 2016, the vehicle was involuntarily repossessed, leaving an unpaid and past-due balance of $5,487. Applicant contended that because his ex-wife kept custody of the vehicle, under the terms of the divorce decree, she was responsible for the charges and is required to hold him harmless for those charges.

$5,487

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

—

1.f

This is a child-support arrearage with an unpaid balance of $21,392. In mid-2015, Applicant decided to get back on track with his child-support payments, and he tried to pay the court $600 to $900 on a monthly basis to cover the current obligation of $495, along with an arrearage amount. In 2017, his payments were rather sporadic. But since November 2017, months before the SOR was issued, Applicant has been making regular monthly $600 child-support payments to the state, totaling $5,400. The account is in the process of being resolved.

$21,392

For Applicant

Child Support Debt

Denied

—

1.g

This is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $1,113 that was placed for collection in January 2014. During his interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in January 2017, Applicant said he knew nothing about the account, but that he would look into it and if it is his responsibility, he would set up payments to resolve it. Applicant did not indicate if he has taken any actions regarding this account, and it remains unclear if the account was opened by his ex-wife after their divorce or if the account is actually Applicant’s responsibility.

$1,113

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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