Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 32-year-old senior telecommunications engineer, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility and personal conduct issues, including multiple delinquent debts and a past incident of alcohol-related misconduct in the military. Despite efforts to address his debts and improve his financial situation, the judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Cable service-related collection for $231. Satisfied. This balance was owed for failure to timely return cable equipment. The collection account was reduced to a zero balance (1.a). Medical collection for $841. Medical insurance claim pending. This debt was acquired in late 2008, when Applicant’s doctor’s office failed to appropriately file with Applicant’s health insurer. When Applicant learned a balance was outstanding, he contacted the provider’s office. The claim was resubmitted and is pending resolution (1.b). Medical collection for $201. Paid. Applicant provided evidence that this account has been paid in full (1.c). Child support collection for $1,206. In repayment. Applicant has been timely paying voluntary child support to the mother of the children who now live with him. An automatic arrearage was created when the mother claimed state benefits on behalf of the children. Applicant informed the state of their financial and custody arrangement, then informed the children’s mother that she might be prosecuted for making a false claim. Applicant and the mother agreed that he would repay the balance cited as owed to the state and that she would reimburse him for the debt she created. He has been making regular payments of $32.50 twice a month on the balance (1.d). Telecommunications collection for $267. Disputed. Applicant denies knowledge of this account. He stated that he has not had service from this provider and that he disputed this credit report entry, but he failed to provide evidence showing his debt to this provider has been satisfied (1.e). Telecommunications collection for $575. Disputed. Same provider as above. Applicant denies knowledge of this account entry. He stated that he disputed the entry on-line with the major credit reporting bureaus. In contrast to the preceding account, this dispute is reflected in his June 9, 2010, credit report (1.f). Past-due account for $230. Satisfied. Applicant provided evidence that all his accounts with this creditor are in good standing (1.g). Medical collection for $56. Unaddressed. Applicant disputed this account and the account noted at 1.j below, stating that he is unaware of their origin. His current credit report reflects that the total amount of $256 was deemed to be owed, charged-off, and is now handled by a major collection agency. There is no evidence that this account has been further addressed (1.h). Medical collection for $55. Satisfied. The Government accepted Applicant’s evidence that this account was paid (1.i). Medical collection for $44. Unaddressed. See 1.h, above (1.j). Returned check collection for $70. Satisfied. After linking a former collection entity to its newer identity, Applicant provided sufficient evidence that this balance has been satisfied (1.k). Medical collection for $100. Unaddressed. Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that this account has been successfully disputed or satisfied (1.l). Collection account for $1,510. Disputed. Applicant testified that he satisfied this account several years ago. He has disputed its continued inclusion on his credit report and is awaiting resolution of his dispute (1.m). Charged-off account for $2,277. In repayment. This obligation represents a debt to a state employment commission. Applicant provided evidence that he has entered into an agreement to repay his debt through monthly payments of $100 and evidence of his last two monthly payments (1.n). State tax lien for $1,476. Satisfied. Applicant provided evidence that this balance has been satisfied (1.o). Medical judgment for $70. Unaddressed. This judgment is from 2002. Applicant does not recognize the debt, but remembers receiving treatment from this provider in 2000. He noted that his co-pay at the time was $20 and would have been paid at the time. Applicant testified that the judgment was disputed, but provided no evidence of its current status (1.p). Utility collection account for $907. Unaddressed. Applicant testified that he successfully disputed this account entry and noted that it has been removed from his credit report, but he failed to provide evidence of his dispute or that successful resolution led to its removal from his credit report (1.q). Collection account for $600. Unaddressed. Applicant initially disputed this entry. He testified that he later settled this balance for $390, but did not provide evidence that this debt was satisfied (1.r). Utility collection account for $37. Unaddressed. Applicant testified that this debt was paid, but failed to provide evidence showing payment was made (1.s). Apartment rental-related collection for $2,102. Disputed. This debt is related to a dispute concerning a past apartment rental. Applicant is currently disputing this balance through his legal representative (1.t). Collection account for $599. Disputed. Applicant disputes that this debt is his. This debt is owed to a creditor with a substantially similar name as the creditor noted at 1.w, below. Applicant denied ever having an account with this creditor or those creditors noted in 1.w, 1.x, and 1.z, below. He credibly testified, however, that he is often confused with his father, who has the same name and resides at an address once shared with Applicant. Applicant’s mother confirmed that Applicant and his father are often confused. She testified that she and Applicant’s father maintained accounts with this creditor “years ago,” and that they currently maintain accounts with the creditor noted at 1.x and 1.z. Legally, Applicant’s surname is followed by “junior.” There is no evidence to contradict the assertion that these accounts are the result of identity confusion due to the similarity in names and addresses (1.u). Telecommunications collection account for $560. Satisfied. This debt was incurred in 2002. Applicant provided evidence that the provider received payment for his then-current balance in May 2004 (1.v). Insurance-related collection account for $493. Disputed. See 1,u, above (1.w). Insurance-related collection account for $418. Disputed. See 1,u, above (1.x). Parking ticket collection for $275. Satisfied. Applicant testified that he paid all outstanding parking tickets before assuming his current position. The debt has not reappeared as a judgment, as would be customary in the designated jurisdiction. The Government agreed that the evidence strongly suggests that this debt was resolved (1.y). Insurance-related collection for $103. Disputed. See 1,u, above (1.z).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding several delinquent debts, leaving questions about his financial responsibility; The applicant's past alcohol-related misconduct in the military raised concerns about his personal conduct and reliability; Despite some progress in addressing debts, the applicant did not demonstrate a consistent pattern of responsible financial behavior.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding several delinquent debts, leaving questions about his financial responsibility.
• The applicant's past alcohol-related misconduct in the military raised concerns about his personal conduct and reliability.
• Despite some progress in addressing debts, the applicant did not demonstrate a consistent pattern of responsible financial behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJul 8, 2010
• Answer filedJul 23, 2010
• Hearing heldNov 16, 2010Amended notice issued on November 5, 2010.
• Decision dateMar 29, 2011

Cite For

• Denial Based on Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
• Impact of Past Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline E
• Consideration of Identity Confusion in Financial Disputes.