Loading case…

Summary

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a federal government contractor with over $22,000 in delinquent debts. Although she did not intentionally falsify her security clearance application, she failed to mitigate the financial considerations concerns. Eligibility is denied.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant denied owing the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a. She stated she never had an account with this company. The debt is listed as a medical debt in the amount of $222, to a dentist (1.a). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.b, in the amount of approximately $1,562, is for a computer Applicant purchased. This debt was included in Applicant’s DMP. The DMP documents show an estimated balance of $510, as of October 2005. Applicant settled this account for $730 on April 11, 2007 (1.b). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.c is a collection account in the amount of approximately $9,841 (1.c). The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.e, are debts to the same bank, but with different account numbers, in the amounts of approximately $3,209 and $2,614, respectively. In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted to a debt to this bank, but stated the two debts were duplicates and that she only had one account with this bank (1.d). I find that Applicant does not currently owe the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e (1.e). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f is to a financial institution in the amount of $3,456. In her May 2005 statement, Applicant admitted she had a credit card with this company, and listed an account number. She stated she used the card to pay for car repairs (1.f). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g is to a credit card company in the amount of approximately $2,187. Applicant admitted to this debt in her response to the SOR, and stated she was making payments of $10 per month on this debt (1.g). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h, in the amount of approximately $1,457, appears to be to a collection agency collecting on behalf of a financial institution (1.h).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions FC DC 1, FC DC 3. The judge applied mitigating conditions FC MC 3, FC MC 6. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has over $22,000 in delinquent debts that remain unpaid; Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition 1 (history of not meeting financial obligations) and Condition 3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply; Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• Applicant has over $22,000 in delinquent debts that remain unpaid.
• Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition 1 (history of not meeting financial obligations) and Condition 3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply.
• Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The standard that must be met for … assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that … assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJul 31, 2006
• Answer filedAug 14, 2006Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
• Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
• Decision dateJul 11, 2007

Cite For

• Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
• Interpretation of Falsification Under Guideline E
• Impact of Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility