Summary
The applicant, a 33-year-old single mother and defense contractor consultant, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to 21 delinquent debts exceeding $32,300. Despite attempts to address her financial issues, the judge found insufficient evidence of a sustained repayment plan or financial counseling, leading to concerns about her reliability and judgment.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: $2,480 adverse judgment from November 2014 – This debt is related to a balance owed to an apartment complex (1.a). $2,569 state tax lien entered in January 2010 – Applicant was told that she could negotiate a repayment plan with the state after she paid a certain percent of the balance owed. To date, no payments have been made toward that percentage (1.b). $808 telecommunications collection balance – Applicant failed to pay her final cable bill before moving, resulting in a balance owed. This debt is now incorporated within her repayment plan (1.c). $15,384 delinquent balance remaining owed after resale of a vehicle repossessed in 2014 – Applicant could not keep up with the payments on an approximately $22,000 automobile after she became pregnant with her youngest child. This debt is now incorporated within her repayment plan (1.d). $169 unpaid, charged-off account related to sums owed by Applicant to a former credit union. They are not part of her repayment plan. She intends to pay them independently in the future (1.e). $201 unpaid, charged-off account related to sums owed by Applicant to a former credit union. They are not part of her repayment plan. She intends to pay them independently in the future (1.f). $636 telecommunications collection balance – This debt is now incorporated within Applicant’s repayment plan (1.g). $636 telecommunications collection balance – It is unclear whether this debt entry is a duplicate of the above or a separate debt. Applicant provided no documentary evidence indicating it was a duplicate. This debt is now incorporated within her repayment plan (1.h). $611 charged-off credit union account balance – Thus far unaddressed, Applicant is trying to have this debt included in her repayment plan (1.i). $1,330 adverse judgment from September 2008 – Applicant has no knowledge of what this account represents and her former law firm could not identify the debt. She does not know if it was ever formally disputed (1.j). $2,461 student loan account – Applicant testified that this account has been satisfied, but provided no documentary evidence to that effect (1.k). $2,214 student loan account – Applicant testified that this account has been satisfied, but provided no documentary evidence to that effect (1.l). $1,000 collection account for telecommunications balance – This debt is now incorporated within Applicant’s repayment plan (1.m). $540 collection account for telecommunications balance – This debt is now incorporated within Applicant’s repayment plan (1.n). $250 – Applicant acknowledges that this debt has a separate and distinct account number, but feels it may be a duplicate entry for the same debt. No documentary evidence was introduced to that effect (1.o). $250 – Applicant acknowledges that this debt has a separate and distinct account number, but feels it may be a duplicate entry for the same debt. No documentary evidence was introduced to that effect (1.p). $205 – Applicant admits responsibility for this delinquent debt, which is related to parking or driving tickets (1.q). $200 – Applicant admits responsibility for this delinquent debt, which is related to parking or driving tickets (1.r). $152 – Applicant admits responsibility for this automobile insurance-related debt, which remains unpaid (1.s). $150 – Applicant admits responsibility for this delinquent debt, which is related to parking or driving tickets (1.t). $65 – Applicant admits responsibility for this delinquent debt, which is related to parking or driving tickets (1.u).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F; Applicant failed to provide documentary evidence of a sustained repayment plan for her debts; The judge found that the applicant's financial issues persisted for over a decade without resolution.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F.
- Applicant failed to provide documentary evidence of a sustained repayment plan for her debts.
- The judge found that the applicant's financial issues persisted for over a decade without resolution.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 7, 2015
- Answer filedJan 12, 2016Notarized response admitting allegations.
- Hearing heldJun 22, 2016
- Decision dateOct 6, 2016
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
- Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
- Impact of Long-term Financial Distress on Security Clearance Eligibility