Summary
The applicant, a 42-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F due to approximately $62,000 in delinquent debts, including a $57,000 mobile home repossession. Although he engaged a credit counselor, the efforts were deemed too late and ineffective. The judge found that the applicant mitigated personal conduct allegations related to failure to report debts on his SF 86 due to confusion and inexperience, but ultimately denied the clearance due to unresolved financial issues.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant failed to report delinquent debts on his SF 86 (2.a). $1,308. Credit counselor is attempting to contact (1.a). $57,551. Repossession of a mobile home that Applicant purchased for $65,000 (1.b). $346 Creditor charged off the debt in 2001 but nothing has been done since (1.c). $543. Cable company installed a box which was returned. Debt has not been settled since placed for collection in 2001 (1.d). $1,212 Security system left in a former residence. Still outstanding since placed for collection in 2001 (1.e). $426 Telephone bill that is still outstanding since placed for collection in 2002 (1.f). $498 Telephone bill that is still outstanding since 2002 (1.g). $193 Electric bill that is still outstanding since placed for collection in 2003 (1.h).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A5.1.1, E2.A5.1.2.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.4, E2.A6.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: Applicant failed to resolve delinquent debts totaling $62,000, including a $57,000 repossession; Engagement with a credit counselor was too late and had little effect on the financial situation; The applicant's failure to report delinquent debts on his SF 86 raised concerns about judgment and reliability.
Why the applicant was denied
- Applicant failed to resolve delinquent debts totaling $62,000, including a $57,000 repossession.
- Engagement with a credit counselor was too late and had little effect on the financial situation.
- The applicant's failure to report delinquent debts on his SF 86 raised concerns about judgment and reliability.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedEvidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A5.1.1raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlLittle evidence that debts resulted from conditions beyond the applicant's control.
- E2.A6.1.3.4rejectedReceiving Counseling for the ProblemCounseling was initiated too late to be effective.
- E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsApplicant's efforts were insufficient and delayed.
Key rule quoted
“"[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJun 9, 2006
- Answer filedJun 20, 2006Applicant requested a hearing.
- Hearing heldDec 4, 2006Hearing was postponed from October 16, 2006.
- Decision dateFeb 9, 2007
Cite for
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Allegations Under Guideline E Due to Confusion and Inexperience
- Timing and Effectiveness of Credit Counseling Efforts in Security Clearance Cases