Summary
The applicant, a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor, sought eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The applicant demonstrated significant efforts to address past financial issues, including entering into a debt-relief agreement and resolving several delinquent accounts. The judge found that the applicant's financial problems were under control and granted eligibility for the public trust position.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: These are two “snapshots” of the same signature loan account with a high credit of $1,657 that was placed for collection and charged off. The creditor subsequently obtained a judgment against Applicant in the amount of $1,760 in January 2013. In his May 2014 e-QIP, Applicant indicated he had reached a pay-off settlement with the creditor, and that the balance would be paid by the end of July 2014. It is unclear if any payments were ever made under that agreement, for in his September 2015 Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he “will be making payments” of at least $75 per month. At the hearing, Applicant altered his version of the facts when he acknowledged that it was not until September 2015 that he agreed to make monthly cash payments of $25. He made those payments until the December 2015 fire, but eventually resumed them. Applicant made his last payment of $0.01 on May 17, 2016, and that same day, a Satisfaction of Judgment was filed by the creditor. The account has been resolved (1.a). These are medical accounts for professional services received by the uninsured Applicant and his family with unpaid balances of $163, $120, $658, $860, and $243 that were placed for collection. Applicant explained that his state income tax refunds are levied by the state department of revenue and applied to his outstanding medical bills. The three largest accounts were paid on November 13, 2015, and the two smaller accounts were paid on November 9, 2015. The accounts have been resolved (1.b). This is bank credit card account with a remaining unpaid balance of $476 that was placed for collection and charged off. In September 2015, Applicant contacted the creditor and entered into a repayment plan under which he agreed to make monthly payments of $50. Applicant contended he made those payments until the fire engulfed his home in December 2015, but that he had to temporarily suspend his payments until he could save enough funds to continue. Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contention regarding the plan or his payments. Nevertheless, it appears that the account is in the process of being resolved (1.g). These are medical accounts for professional services received by Applicant and his family with unpaid balances of $699, $161, $41, $1,256., $650, $667, $146, $536, $250, and $440 that were placed for collection. Applicant explained that his state income tax refunds are levied by the state department of revenue and applied to his outstanding medical bills. Because of the manner in which medical accounts are listed in the credit reports it is difficult to identify specific accounts. A payment was made in the amount of $150 in November 2015, and additional payments were made in the amounts of $20, $20, $37, and $530 in May 2016, but it is difficult to align payments with medical accounts. These accounts appear to be in process of being resolved (1.h). This is an automobile loan on a vehicle with an original limit of $30,000 and monthly payments of $450 to $475 that Applicant could not sustain when it went into collection and $16,539 was charged off. Applicant voluntarily relinquished the vehicle. It was supposedly sold at auction. Applicant contended that he was told there would be no deficiency and that the amount of the sale was sufficient to settle the account. Applicant failed to submit documentation to support his contention that the account had been settled without any lingering deficiency remaining, claiming that his documentation was lost in the fire. The account no longer appears in Applicant’s October 2015 credit report. Nevertheless, it remains unclear if the account has been resolved (1.q). This is home monitoring system account with an unpaid and past-due amount of $362 that was placed for collection. Applicant listed the debt in his e-QIP and stated that he had contacted the creditor and indicated he would pay a settled amount of $250 by the end of August 2014. At some point before his June 2014 credit report was issued, Applicant disputed the account. During his interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in July 2014, Applicant acknowledged the account and repeated his earlier statement of intent. Applicant’s position changed, and in his Answer to the SOR and during the hearing, Applicant’s memory changed and, despite his research efforts, he no longer had any knowledge of the creditor or the account. The account still appears in Applicant’s October 2015 credit report. The account has not been resolved (1.t). This is a county library account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $56 that was placed for collection. Applicant listed the debt in his e-QIP and stated that he had contacted the creditor to inquire about it, but the creditor had no record of it. He noted that if he does, in fact, owe the amount, he will pay it. During his OPM interview, he repeated his earlier position, but added an additional comment that he had no knowledge of the collection agent and was not sure if the account was legitimate. His position in his Answer to the SOR and during the hearing again changed, and he now contends he paid the bill “years ago.” Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contention regarding a payment. The debt is not listed in Applicant’s most recent credit report. The account has not been resolved (1.u).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.3. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.2, F.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving financial issues through a debt-relief agreement; The applicant's financial situation showed improvement, with a monthly surplus available for savings or spending; The applicant provided evidence of resolved delinquent accounts and ongoing efforts to manage finances.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving financial issues through a debt-relief agreement.
- The applicant's financial situation showed improvement, with a monthly surplus available for savings or spending.
- The applicant provided evidence of resolved delinquent accounts and ongoing efforts to manage finances.
Conditions Referenced
- F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- F.3appliedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 26, 2015
- Answer filedSep 16, 2015
- Hearing heldMay 17, 2016
- Decision dateAug 24, 2016
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Improvement in Financial Management and Stability