Summary
A 44-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance for an ADP I/II/III position due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had 29 debts totaling $22,659, which largely stemmed from a leave of absence to care for her mother and subsequent unemployment after brain surgery.
Specific financial concerns included a $155 jewelry debt with a partial payment, a $762 delinquent satellite television debt, and a $60 medical debt on a payment plan. The applicant also provided erroneous "No" answers to Question 22b on her 2002 and 2004 SF 85Ps regarding delinquencies over 180 days. While the judge determined these statements were not made with intent to deceive, this did not mitigate the financial concerns.
The denial was primarily based on insufficient evidence of financial progress, as the applicant paid only $148 towards her Statement of Reasons debts in 2006. Despite receiving financial counseling and making some payments, the judge found a lack of financial responsibility, leading to the denial of eligibility.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The Applicant had 29 debts totaling $22,659, with insufficient evidence of financial progress towards elimination of her debts.
- In 2006, the Applicant paid only $148 towards her SOR debts, indicating a lack of financial responsibility.
- The judge found that the Applicant's erroneous statements on two SF 85Ps were not made with intent to deceive, but this did not mitigate financial concerns.
Conditions Referenced
- F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire
- F3rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe judge found insufficient evidence of financial progress despite the circumstances.
- E2appliedThe Applicant's Erroneous Statements Were Not Made with Intent to Deceive
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 issuedAug 15, 2006
- Answer filedOct 12, 2006Notarized and sworn response received on 10/16/2006
- Hearing heldNov 30, 2006Record was held open for additional evidence
- Decision dateJan 22, 2007
Cite For
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Progress Under Guideline F
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
- Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility