ISCR Case 14-03758.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03758.h1

grantedFeb 23, 2016· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old welder for a DOD contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to a state tax lien and multiple debts totaling approximately $30,000. Specific allegations included a $653 debt and a $1,535 debt to the same creditor, a $2,319 student loan, and a disputed $26 phone debt.

The applicant admitted most factual allegations but successfully disputed the $26 phone debt, which was not present on a 2015 credit report. Regarding other debts, the applicant demonstrated active repayment. For instance, the $653 debt was paid in full by May 2015, and payments were being made on the $1,535 debt. The applicant also made payments on the student loan, reducing its balance to $178 by August 2015.

The judge found that the applicant made significant good-faith efforts to resolve her debts and acted responsibly, even during periods of unemployment and career training. These efforts, coupled with evidence of debt resolution on her credit reports, led to the determination that the financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond her control. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors and resolve debts despite periods of unemployment.
The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, such as unemployment and training for a new career.
The applicant's credit reports indicated a track record of debt resolution and responsible financial behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.2.crejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under ControlThe record lacks evidence of credit or financial counseling.
F.2.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
F.2.eappliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 2015
Answer filedJun 8, 2015Complete response submitted after initial incomplete response.
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 23, 2016

Cite For

Good-faith Effort to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Consideration of Overall Financial Behavior and Debt Resolution Efforts

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.b	Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.c	Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.d	The creditor identified in SOR allegations 1.d ($653) and 1.m ($1,535) are the same. In her response to the SOR, Applicant advised that she was paying $40 a month on the debt in 1.d and $90 a month on the debt in 1.m. The September 2015 credit report indicated that the debt in 1.d was paid in full as of May 2015 and that the account had a zero balance. $653	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.e–1.j	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—
1.k	SOR allegation 1.k concerns a student loan debt of $2,319. In her response to the SOR, Applicant advised that she was paying $80 a week on this debt. The September 2015 credit report indicates a balance of $178 and a past-due amount of $178. The credit report reflects a last payment made on this debt in August 2015. $2,319	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.l	Applicant denied the $26 phone debt in allegation 1.l. The 2014 credit report shows that she disputed this debt, which is not listed on the 2015 credit report. I find that Applicant successfully disputed this debt. $26	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
1.m	The creditor identified in SOR allegations 1.d ($653) and 1.m ($1,535) are the same. In her response to the SOR, Applicant advised that she was paying $40 a month on the debt in 1.d and $90 a month on the debt in 1.m. The September 2015 credit report indicated that the debt in 1.d was paid in full as of May 2015 and that the account had a zero balance. $1,535	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.b

Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.c

Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a - 1.i, 1.k, and 1.m of the SOR.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.d

The creditor identified in SOR allegations 1.d ($653) and 1.m ($1,535) are the same. In her response to the SOR, Applicant advised that she was paying $40 a month on the debt in 1.d and $90 a month on the debt in 1.m. The September 2015 credit report indicated that the debt in 1.d was paid in full as of May 2015 and that the account had a zero balance.

$653

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.e–1.j

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

1.k

SOR allegation 1.k concerns a student loan debt of $2,319. In her response to the SOR, Applicant advised that she was paying $80 a week on this debt. The September 2015 credit report indicates a balance of $178 and a past-due amount of $178. The credit report reflects a last payment made on this debt in August 2015.

$2,319

For Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.l

Applicant denied the $26 phone debt in allegation 1.l. The 2014 credit report shows that she disputed this debt, which is not listed on the 2015 credit report. I find that Applicant successfully disputed this debt.

$26

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Denied

—

(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt

—

1.m

$1,535

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision