Summary
The applicant, a 60-year-old senior facility security officer with a history of financial difficulties, successfully mitigated security concerns under Guideline F related to financial considerations. The judge found that the applicant's financial situation had improved significantly, with evidence of debt resolution and a reliable employment history, leading to a decision to grant security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: a charged-off debt of $15,713 related to a repossessed auto (1.a). $961 has been paid (1.b). a cable bill for $816 (1.c). $205 unpaid parking ticket (1.d). $205 unpaid parking ticket (1.e). $105 unpaid parking ticket (1.f). $65 unpaid parking ticket (1.g). $80 unpaid speeding ticket (1.h). $50 debt in collection to an unidentified medical creditor (1.i). $123 debt to a phone company (1.j).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant resolved significant debts and demonstrated improved financial management; The applicant provided documentation of payments made towards delinquent debts; Strong character references supported the applicant's trustworthiness and reliability.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant resolved significant debts and demonstrated improved financial management.
- The applicant provided documentation of payments made towards delinquent debts.
- Strong character references supported the applicant's trustworthiness and reliability.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened Long Ago or Infrequently
- AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Counseling or Indications That the Problem Is Under Control
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
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 issuedFeb 4, 2016
- Answer filedMar 6, 2016Applicant elected for a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
- Decision dateApr 21, 2017
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Importance of Character References in Security Clearance Decisions
- Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility