Summary
The applicant, a 51-year-old employee of a federal contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to unresolved financial issues, including numerous delinquent accounts totaling over $20,000. Despite some recent payments and claims of payment plans, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or that her financial problems were under control, leading to a denial of her security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 1.a ($1,761) alleged the same delinquent account (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.b ($7,030). Applicant claimed she made a $2,000 payment on this debt and then established a monthly $148.48 payment plan. The evidence submitted is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.b). SOR ¶ 1.c ($552) and 1.d ($496) alleged the same delinquent account to a telephone provider. Applicant’s evidence shows two payments made to the creditor in May 2016 ($50) and June 2016 ($242) (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d ($496) alleged the same delinquent account to a telephone provider. Applicant’s evidence shows two payments made to the creditor in May 2016 ($50) and June 2016 ($242) (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.e ($456), 1.j ($270), 1.w ($56), 1.aa ($55). 1.cc ($37), 1.dd ($37), 1.gg ($716), and 1.hh ($1,126). Applicant claimed she paid these debts. She presented no documentary evidence to corroborate her claims (1.e). SOR ¶ 1.f ($396) and 1.g ($396) alleged the same delinquent account to a telephone provider. Applicant’s documentary evidence shows the account was paid (1.f). SOR ¶ 1.g ($396) alleged the same delinquent account to a telephone provider. Applicant’s documentary evidence shows the account was paid (1.g). SOR ¶ 1.h ($320) and 1.ff ($2,474). Applicant claimed she established payment plans to pay these debts. She presented no documentary evidence of the payment plans or of any payments made (1.h). SOR ¶ 1.i ($296), 1.t ($105), 1.y ($55), and 1.z ($55). Applicant’s documentary evidence shows she paid these debts (1.i). SOR ¶ 1.j ($270). Applicant claimed she paid these debts. She presented no documentary evidence to corroborate her claims (1.j). SOR ¶ 1.k ($193), 1.l ($165), 1.m ($160), 1.n ($136), 1.o ($128), 1.r ($108), 1.s ($106), 1.u ($90), 1.v ($60), 1.x ($55), and 1.bb ($454) alleged Applicant’s medical debts. She claimed she consolidated these debts, entered into payment plans, and is current on her payments. Applicant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.k). SOR ¶ 1.l ($165) alleged Applicant’s medical debts. She claimed she consolidated these debts, entered into payment plans, and is current on her payments. Applicant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.l). SOR ¶ 1.m ($160) alleged Applicant’s medical debts. She claimed she consolidated these debts, entered into payment plans, and is current on her payments. Applicant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.m). SOR ¶ 1.n ($136) alleged Applicant’s medical debts. She claimed she consolidated these debts, entered into payment plans, and is current on her payments. Applicant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.n). SOR ¶ 1.o ($128) alleged Applicant’s medical debts. She claimed she consolidated these debts, entered into payment plans, and is current on her payments. Applicant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to corroborate her claims (1.o). SOR ¶ 1.p ($117) alleged the same delinquent account (1.p). SOR ¶ 1.q ($114) alleged the same delinquent account (1.q). SOR ¶ 1.ee ($1,666) alleged the same delinquent account. Applicant’s documentary evidence shows it was paid in September 2016 (1.ee).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: Applicant presented insufficient information to establish financial responsibility; Financial problems were ongoing and recent, with many delinquent accounts dating back to 2009; Evidence of payments and payment plans was insufficient to demonstrate good-faith efforts to resolve debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant presented insufficient information to establish financial responsibility.
- Financial problems were ongoing and recent, with many delinquent accounts dating back to 2009.
- Evidence of payments and payment plans was insufficient to demonstrate good-faith efforts to resolve debts.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 24, 2016
- Answer filedJun 3, 2016
- Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Decision dateAug 9, 2017
Cite For
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
- Ongoing Financial Problems as a Disqualifying Factor
- Burden of Proof on Applicant to Mitigate Security Concerns