Summary
The applicant, a 39-year-old individual with one child, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant outstanding debts. Despite some debts being attributed to identity theft and a credible effort to address certain debts, the applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to a denial of security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admits that he answered “No” to “Section 26. Financial Record Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts” when he executed his April 2016 Security Clearance Applicant (SCA). He avers, credibly, the following: I had just had my credit report [examined] when I purchased the home [in September of 2015]. I had seen a lot of the stuff that I had been disputing online, stuff that I had taken care of that were my debts that I had just paid off, like credit cards and stuff like that in order to purchase my home. So I wasn’t aware (2.a). Applicant admits past-due medical debts totaling about $315 (1.a). Applicant admits past-due medical debts totaling about $315 (1.b). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor G, as the result of the repossession of an automobile, in the amount of about $11,376 (1.g). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor H, as the result of a medical debt, in the amount of about $9,676 (1.h). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor J, as the result of an insurance debt, in the amount of about $16,060 (1.j). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor R in the amount of about $985 (1.r). Applicant admits past-due medical debts totaling about $315 (1.t). Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor V in the amount of about $103 (1.v). Applicant admits past-due medical debts totaling about $315 (1.w).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had significant outstanding debts totaling over $37,000 that were not under control; The applicant failed to provide evidence to mitigate specific debts related to repossession and medical expenses; The judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that granting clearance was consistent with national security.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant successfully attributed some debts to identity theft, which was supported by evidence.
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to address certain past-due debts, which were found in his favor.
- The judge found no willful falsification regarding the applicant's financial record on the security clearance application.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were not deemed to be under control.
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 17, 2018
- Answer filedFeb 12, 2018
- Hearing heldMay 24, 2018
- Decision dateAug 1, 2018
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
- Consideration of Identity Theft in Financial Assessments
- Evaluation of Personal Conduct in Relation to Financial Disclosures