Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old woman seeking a public trust position, faced concerns under Guidelines E and F due to financial difficulties stemming from her husband's reduced income during their marriage. After their separation, she took steps to manage her debts, including working with a credit counselor and developing a payment plan. The judge found that she did not intentionally falsify her application and had mitigated the government's concerns, resulting in a granted eligibility for trustworthiness.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Collection account (2000) $386.00 Unpaid - Applicant does not recognize debt (1.a). Credit card (2001) $1,092.00 Unpaid - Disagrees with amount, owes $250 (1.b). Internet bill (2002) $102.00 Unpaid (1.c). Mail order account (2002) $987.00 Unpaid (1.d). Dish Network bill (2000) $92.00 Unpaid (1.e). Collection account (2000) $348.00 Unpaid (1.f). Loan (2003) $2,893.00 Unpaid (1.g). Automobile voluntary repossession (2003) $7,149.00 Paying $100 a month (1.h). Automobile repossession (2003) $13,567.00 Unpaid (1.i). Store account (2003) $1,666.00 Unpaid - disagrees with amount owed (1.j). Cable bill (2003) $159.00 Unpaid (1.k). Medical bill (2005) $135.00 Unpaid (1.l).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.4, E2.A6.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to manage her debts through credit counseling; She has been making timely payments on her current bills and living within her means; The judge found no intent to falsify her application, as her omissions were based on a lack of knowledge about her debts.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to manage her debts through credit counseling.
- She has been making timely payments on her current bills and living within her means.
- The judge found no intent to falsify her application, as her omissions were based on a lack of knowledge about her debts.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- E2.A6.1.3.4appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem and There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Under Control
- E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 25, 2006
- Answer filedSep 22, 2006
- Hearing heldFeb 15, 2007Applicant waived her right to 15 days notice.
- Decision dateApr 11, 2007
Cite For
- Good-faith Efforts to Manage Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
- Lack of Intent to Falsify Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Financial Hardship Cases