Summary
The applicant, a 57-year-old senior property industrial security representative, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues, including a foreclosure and multiple delinquent accounts totaling over $120,000. The applicant failed to disclose these financial problems on his security questionnaire and did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by the government.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Falsified his responses to inquiries concerning any debts turned over for collection in the past seven years and any accounts or credit cards charged off or suspended in the past seven years (2.a). Failed to list his 1983 driving under the influence (DUI) arrest on his March 2013 e-QIP (2.b). Applicant’s home went into foreclosure and the mortgage company charged off more than $84,000 (1.a). Applicant asserted that he might claim bankruptcy protection to address the $84,000 charged-off mortgage (1.b). Applicant had seven accounts placed for collection, which totaled more than $35,000, none of which have been paid (1.c). Applicant asserted that he would soon make payments on the $9,768 collection debt (1.d). Applicant disputed the delinquent obligations in SOR 1.c ($12,749), 1.e ($5,673), and 1.f ($2,190) (1.e). Applicant disputed the delinquent obligations in SOR 1.c ($12,749), 1.e ($5,673), and 1.f ($2,190) (1.f). Applicant was an authorized user on one account with a creditor and his credit report indicated he is 'paying as agreed' on his account with this same creditor (1.g). Applicant asserted that he had paid off the delinquent obligations in SOR 1.h ($4,288) (1.h). Applicant asserted that he had paid off the delinquent obligations in SOR 1.i ($225) (1.i).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had a charged-off mortgage of over $84,000 and seven delinquent accounts totaling more than $35,000, none of which were paid; The applicant failed to disclose his financial problems on his March 2013 security questionnaire, answering 'no' to questions about defaults and delinquencies; The applicant did not provide any corroborating documentation to support his claims regarding his financial situation or efforts to resolve his debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had a charged-off mortgage of over $84,000 and seven delinquent accounts totaling more than $35,000, none of which were paid.
- The applicant failed to disclose his financial problems on his March 2013 security questionnaire, answering 'no' to questions about defaults and delinquencies.
- The applicant did not provide any corroborating documentation to support his claims regarding his financial situation or efforts to resolve his debts.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's financial issues have persisted for years without resolution.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate that his financial issues were due to circumstances beyond his control.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThere was no evidence of financial counseling or efforts to resolve debts.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant failed to provide evidence of any good-faith efforts to repay debts.
- AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedHas a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide documented proof to substantiate his disputes regarding debts.
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 17, 2016
- Answer filedJul 11, 2016Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
- Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
- Decision dateAug 1, 2017
Cite For
- Failure to Disclose Financial Issues on Security Questionnaire Under Guideline E
- Significant Financial Obligations and Lack of Documentation Under Guideline F
- Requirements for Mitigating Conditions in Financial Considerations Cases