Summary
Applicant is a 38-year-old senior engineer employed by a defense contractor. He had numerous delinquent debts due to frequent trips to visit a dying parent, but he sought financial counseling, entered into payment agreements, and made a good-faith effort to resolve his indebtedness. Although he provided incorrect answers on two security clearance applications, the judge found that he successfully mitigated the security concerns regarding financial considerations and personal conduct, resulting in a granted clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant falsified material facts on a standard form 86, executed by him on June 6, 1996, in response to 'Section 28. Your financial delinquencies a. In the last 7 years, have you ever been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?; b. Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?' He failed to list seven debts that had become delinquent between 1992 and 1994. He did not know about the first six and did not remember the seventh (2.a). During an interview with a Special Agent of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on November 1, 2005, he stated that he had only charged $500 on his corporate credit card, whereas in truth, he charged nearly $2,000 to $3,000 in personal expenses, and he was at least 120 days overdue on paying the account when he was terminated by his employer (2.b). On a security clearance application dated December 6, 2006, in response to 'Question 17. Your Military Record - have you ever received other than an honorable discharge from the Military?', Applicant failed to disclose that he had been discharged under other than honorable conditions (2.c). $84 paid (1.a). $2,823 pay plan (1.b). $1,436 pay plan* (1.c). $9,093 pay plan* (1.d). $3,033 pay plan* (1.e). $112 paid (1.f). $5,424 paid (1.g). $56,996 pay plan (1.h). $3,387 pay plan* (1.i). $3,000 same as 1.i (1.j). $2,498 same as 1.d (1.m).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19(a), F.19(c), F.19(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20(b), F.20(c), F.20(d). The decision turned on the following: Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues through counseling and payment agreements; The judge found that the incorrect answers on the security clearance applications were not recent and were attributable to a government mistake; The applicant's financial delinquencies were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically his mother's illness.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues through counseling and payment agreements.
- The judge found that the incorrect answers on the security clearance applications were not recent and were attributable to a government mistake.
- The applicant's financial delinquencies were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically his mother's illness.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- F.19(d)raisedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
- F.20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- F.20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
- F.20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
Key Rule Quoted
“"Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 16, 2007
- Answer filedFeb 19, 2007
- Hearing heldSep 12, 2007Applicant waived 15-day notice requirement.
- Decision dateSep 28, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Personal Circumstances
- Good-faith Efforts in Resolving Debts
- Impact of Past Conduct on Current Security Clearance Eligibility