Summary
The applicant, a 38-year-old Warehouse Specialist and U.S. Navy veteran, faced security concerns under Guidelines E and F due to past financial difficulties and alleged omissions in his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant made a good-faith effort to resolve his debts and did not intentionally falsify information on his e-QIP. Ultimately, the applicant was granted eligibility for a security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant denies that he deliberately failed to disclose the before-mentioned student loans, and the alleged satellite television service debt, in answer to Section 26: Financial Record: Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts, on his June 2014 e-QIP (2.a). Applicant denies that he deliberately failed to disclose a December 2000 charge for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of Alcohol/Drugs, in answer to the second part of Section 22: Police Record, on his June 2014 e-QIP (2.b). Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A, for student loans, in the alleged past-due amount of about $10,712 (1.a). Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A, for student loans, in the alleged past-due amount of about $10,712 (1.b). Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor C, for a credit card, in the alleged past-due amount of about $285 (1.c). Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor D, for satellite television (TV) service, in the alleged past-due amount of about $651 (1.d).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19.a, E.16.a. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20.b, F.20.c, F.20.d, E.17.a. The decision turned on the following: The applicant resolved significant past-due student loans through consolidation and payment; The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to unemployment and underemployment, which were beyond his control; The applicant did not intentionally omit relevant information from his e-QIP, demonstrating credibility.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant resolved significant past-due student loans through consolidation and payment.
- The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to unemployment and underemployment, which were beyond his control.
- The applicant did not intentionally omit relevant information from his e-QIP, demonstrating credibility.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E.16.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
- F.20.cappliedClear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
- F.20.dappliedEvidence Shows the Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
- E.17.aappliedNo Willful Falsification of the E-qip
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 26, 2016
- Answer filedApr 4, 2016
- Hearing heldJun 23, 2016
- Decision dateNov 17, 2016
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
- Credibility Assessment in Personal Conduct Cases Under Guideline E
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations