Summary
The applicant, a 50-year-old employee of a government contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial issues stemming from her divorce in 2012. The judge found that the applicant had addressed her debts responsibly, with most being attributed to her former spouse, leading to a decision to grant her security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant denies that she is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about $14,274. Pursuant to her divorce degree, her former spouse was awarded their residence. Pursuant to a quitclaim deed, he also assumed the debt vis-a-vis the property. He later defaulted on the mortgage, and Creditor A sold by the property by a “short sale.” Creditor A has not sought any monies from Appellant. This allegation is found for Applicant (1.a). Applicant initially denied that she was indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $169. She later discovered that this was her debt, and not that of her former husband. She paid this debt in January of 2015, as evidenced by a check drawn to Creditor B. This allegation is found for Applicant (1.b). Applicant also initially denied that she was indebted to Creditor C in the amount of about $134. She later discovered that this was her debt, and not that of her former husband. She paid this debt in January of 2015, as evidenced by a check drawn to Creditor C. This allegation is found for Applicant (1.c). Applicant denies that she is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about $5,591. Pursuant to her divorce degree, her former spouse was also awarded their furniture. He paid $3,000 towards this debt, but later defaulted on the payments. This is corroborated by a statement from her former spouse. In theory, although Applicant may be technically responsible for the post-divorce financial shortcoming of her former spouse, I find this alleged debt to be de minimis when compared to the overall alleged past-due indebtedness. This allegation is found for Applicant (1.d).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's financial issues were primarily due to her divorce, which was largely beyond her control; She demonstrated responsible behavior by paying off two debts and clarifying the nature of others that were not her responsibility; The applicant was well-respected in her workplace and community, supporting her reliability.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's financial issues were primarily due to her divorce, which was largely beyond her control.
- She demonstrated responsible behavior by paying off two debts and clarifying the nature of others that were not her responsibility.
- The applicant was well-respected in her workplace and community, supporting her reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 16, 2015
- Answer filedNov 21, 2015
- Hearing heldFeb 16, 2016
- Decision dateJul 21, 2016
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Due to Divorce Under Guideline F
- Responsible Behavior in Addressing Debts as a Mitigating Factor
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations