Summary
The applicant, a 45-year-old claims processor for a defense contractor, faced trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including multiple delinquent accounts totaling approximately $15,812. Despite acknowledging some debts, the applicant failed to provide a credible plan for repayment or evidence of financial management, leading to the denial of her eligibility for a public trust position.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: This is a state tax lien in the amount of $331 that was filed against Applicant in June 2010. Applicant claimed that in October 2012 she agreed to a repayment plan under which she would make monthly payments of $50 commencing in November 2012. Applicant’s husband was supposed to make the payments, but Applicant was not sure if he ever did so. Furthermore, when she finally asked him about the payments, he admitted that he had forgotten about them. As of the closing of the record, no documentation indicating either a repayment plan or payments had been submitted to me by Applicant. The account remains unresolved (1.a). This is a judgment in the amount of $257 that Applicant initially identified as the unpaid balance on a loan for the purchase of a 2004 Jeep that was repossessed in 2009. She subsequently denied having any knowledge of the debt. During the hearing, she acknowledged that she had not made any effort to identify the creditor. The account remains unresolved (1.b). This is an automobile loan with a high credit of $17,440 that was placed for collection and charged off in the amount of $9,417. The account was transferred or sold to another collection agent. Applicant initially could not identify the account, the creditor, or the collection agent, but subsequently acknowledged the loan was for an automobile that she eventually voluntarily returned in 2013 because her medical condition made it difficult for her to drive. The vehicle was to be sold by the creditor, and she was to be responsible for the remaining unpaid balance. During the hearing, she gave inconsistent stories regarding contacting the creditor. The account remains unresolved (1.c). These are medical accounts with unpaid balances of $2,535, $1,709, $210, $93, and $55. At one point, Applicant denied knowing anything about some of the debts. During her OPM interview in October 2012, Applicant said she would contact the creditors and resolve as many of the accounts as possible. She failed to do so, claiming that the progression of her illness prevented her from following up on her promise. With the exception of the one account for $210 (for which Applicant claimed she made payments of $25 starting in August 2012), Applicant offered no evidence of any contacts, repayment arrangements, or payments pertaining to any of the accounts. As to the one account for which payments were claimed, she failed to submit any documentation to support her claim. The accounts remain unresolved (1.d). This is a furniture store charge account with a credit limit of $740 and a past-due balance of $300 that was placed for collection. Applicant contended she had paid the account in full, but she failed to submit any documentation to support her contention. The account remains unresolved (1.f). This is a bank credit card account with a credit limit of $300 and a past-due balance of $514 that was placed for collection and charged off. Applicant initially claimed that she had paid off the entire balance in October 2012. She subsequently stated that when she moved she never received another statement from the creditor. Since she received the SOR, Applicant has made no effort to resolve the remaining unpaid balance. The account remains unresolved (1.g). This is an unspecified type of loan account with an unpaid balance of $312 that was placed for collection and charged off. Applicant purportedly contacted the collection agent 'the other day' and was advised that the remaining balance had been reduced to $157. She offered no testimonial or documentary evidence of having entered into any repayment arrangements or making any payments. The account remains unresolved (1.h). This is a clothing store charge account with a credit limit of $100 and a high credit of $297 that was placed for collection and charged off in October 2011. The account was sold to a debt purchaser. Applicant could not identify the account, the creditor, or the eventual debt purchaser. The account remains unresolved (1.i). This is a credit card account with an unpaid balance of $202 that was placed for collection and charged off in October 2009. Applicant said she contacted the creditor in 2012 and gave them her new address. She acknowledged that she has not been in contact with the creditor since 2012. The account remains unresolved (1.k). These are two cellular telephone accounts with unpaid balances of $200 (an account for Applicant’s daughter) and $602 (an account for Applicant) that were placed for collection. Applicant offered no testimonial or documentary evidence of having entered into any repayment arrangements or making any payments for either account. The accounts remain unresolved (1.l). These are two credit card accounts with unpaid balances of $196 and $454 that were placed for collection and charged off. Applicant offered no testimonial or documentary evidence of having entered into any repayment arrangements or making any payments for either account. The accounts remain unresolved (1.m). This is an unspecified type of account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $326 that was placed for collection and sold to a debt purchaser. Applicant initially claimed to have no knowledge of the account, but subsequently claimed that it was one of the accounts for which she was responsible after her second divorce from her first husband. Applicant offered no testimonial or documentary evidence of having entered into any repayment arrangements or making any payments for the account. The account remains unresolved (1.q).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns regarding financial considerations; She had a history of not meeting financial obligations, including multiple delinquent accounts and a state tax lien; The applicant did not provide a credible plan for resolving her debts or evidence of financial management.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns regarding financial considerations.
- She had a history of not meeting financial obligations, including multiple delinquent accounts and a state tax lien.
- The applicant did not provide a credible plan for resolving her debts or evidence of financial management.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect [sensitive] information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 5, 2015
- Answer filedSep 14, 2015
- Hearing heldFeb 2, 2016
- Decision dateAug 9, 2016
Cite For
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Financial Issues
- Failure to Provide a Credible Repayment Plan
- History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations