Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 53-year-old electronics technician with a history of military service, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to alleged delinquent debts totaling approximately $150,251. The applicant successfully disputed the debts, demonstrating they were erroneously reported and not his responsibility. The judge granted the security clearance, finding the applicant's evidence sufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: On March 5, 2014, when Applicant completed his e-QIP, he responded to questions pertaining to his financial record. One question in Section 26 – Financial Record (Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts) asked if, in the last seven years, he had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency; been over 120 days delinquent on any debt not previously entered, and if he was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “no” to those questions. He certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge and belief, but, based on an analysis of his credit report, the response to those questions was considered to be false, for at that time, Applicant’s credit report erroneously listed several accounts that had been placed for collection. He steadfastly denied the accounts were his and disputed them. As noted above, his disputes were successful and the derogatory information was removed from his credit report (2.a). There is a medical account with a remaining and past-due balance of $771 that was placed for collection in January 2014, as reported by Experian (1.a). There are two child-support accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $129,521 and $18,243 that were placed for collection in March 2014, as reported by Experian (1.b). There are two child-support accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $129,521 and $18,243 that were placed for collection in March 2014, as reported by Experian (1.c). There is a medical account with a remaining and past-due balance of $699 that was placed for collection in August 2011, as reported by Experian (1.d). There are four medical accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $660, $236, $348, and $127 that were placed for collection by the same medical provider (through two different collection agents) in September 2012 or February 2013, as reported by Experian (1.e). There are four medical accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $660, $236, $348, and $127 that were placed for collection by the same medical provider (through two different collection agents) in September 2012 or February 2013, as reported by Experian (1.f). There are four medical accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $660, $236, $348, and $127 that were placed for collection by the same medical provider (through two different collection agents) in September 2012 or February 2013, as reported by Experian (1.g). There are four medical accounts with remaining and past-due balances of $660, $236, $348, and $127 that were placed for collection by the same medical provider (through two different collection agents) in September 2012 or February 2013, as reported by Experian (1.h). There is a medical account with a remaining and past-due balance of $225 that was placed for collection in March 2013, as reported by Experian (1.i). There is a library account with a remaining and past-due balance of $15 that was placed for collection in October 2011, as reported by Experian (1.j).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant successfully disputed all alleged debts, proving they were not his responsibility; The applicant's credit report showed a score of 746, categorized as excellent, with no delinquent accounts; The applicant's supervisor provided favorable character references, highlighting his honesty and reliability.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant successfully disputed all alleged debts, proving they were not his responsibility.
• The applicant's credit report showed a score of 746, categorized as excellent, with no delinquent accounts.
• The applicant's supervisor provided favorable character references, highlighting his honesty and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJul 31, 2014Applicant received the SOR on August 12, 2014.
• Answer filedAug 27, 2014Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
• Hearing heldDec 17, 2014Hearing was convened as scheduled.
• Decision dateJan 16, 2015

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Erroneous Reporting
• Successful Dispute of Debts Not Belonging to the Applicant
• Character References Supporting Reliability and Trustworthiness