Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 39-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial difficulties stemming from various life events, including medical issues and job instability. The applicant demonstrated significant progress in resolving debts, with most accounts either satisfied or in the process of resolution, leading to a granted security clearance.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: This refers to a bank credit card account with a $4,000 credit limit that was past due $4,667 when it was sold to a debt purchaser in 2012. In 2013, the debt purchaser obtained a $4,781 judgment against Applicant. Following the judgment, Applicant’s salary was involuntarily garnished, and in August 2015 – nearly four months before the SOR was issued – the judgment was satisfied with the final payment. Applicant had paid $5,022.52. A Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on September 1, 2015. The account has been resolved (1.a). This refers to a medical account that was placed for collection and a $915 judgment was obtained against Applicant in 2013. Applicant acknowledged that he has made no efforts to resolve the account, preferring to focus on other accounts. The account has not been resolved (1.b). These two allegations refer to snapshots of the same bank-issued home improvement store charge account with a $3,500 credit limit and an unpaid balance of $5,062, of which $1,945 was past due and placed for collection. The account was sold to a debt purchaser. The debt purchaser obtained a judgment of $5,822.17 in September 2012, and instituted an income execution to garnish Applicant’s wages. Applicant’s wages were garnished, commencing in November 2013, and as of December 2015 – the same month that the SOR was issued – $4,067.37 of Applicant’s wages had been garnished, leaving an unpaid balance of $2,990.25. The 2014 credit report erroneously reported that there had been no payments towards the judgment, but, in truth, $4,067.37 had already been paid. The account is in the process of being resolved (1.c). This refers to an unspecified type of account that was placed for collection in 2012. The collection agent obtained a judgment of $6,793.25 in May 2012, and instituted an income execution to garnish Applicant’s wages. Applicant’s wages were garnished, commencing in December 2012, and as of April 2016, $7,312.59, including interest and fees, of Applicant’s wages had been garnished. Before the SOR was issued, the most recent payment on the judgment occurred on October 24, 2013. A final payment of $617.53 was made on May 11, 2016. The attorney representing the judgment-plaintiff indicated the judgment had been satisfied, and that a Satisfaction of Judgment would be submitted to the credit reporting agencies. The 2014 credit report erroneously reported that there had been no payments towards the judgment, but, in truth, $7,312.59 had already been paid. The account has been resolved (1.d). This refers to a bank second mortgage account with a high credit of $32,773 and unpaid and a past-due balance of $15,739.12 that was placed for collection in 2014. Applicant worked with the collection agent. In May 2014, Applicant paid the collection agent $400; in July 2014, after withdrawing funds from his 401(k) retirement account, he made another payment of $11,339.12; and in August 2014 – about 16 months before the SOR was issued – he made a payment of $4,000, for a total of $15,739.12, resolving the delinquency. The account has been resolved (1.e). This refers to an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $3,472 that was placed for collection and sold to a debt purchaser identified as a factoring company. In May 2016, the account was settled for $1,909.79, and Applicant made that payment to the debt purchaser which, according to the debt purchaser, resolved the account. The account has been resolved (1.f). This refers to an unspecified type of bank account with an unpaid balance of $2,147 that was placed for collection and sold to the same debt purchaser identified as a factoring company, identified above. Applicant acknowledged that he has made no efforts to resolve the account, preferring to focus on other accounts. The account has not been resolved (1.g). These refer to two medical accounts with unpaid balances of $893 and $239 that were placed for collection. Applicant acknowledged that he has made no efforts to resolve the accounts, preferring to focus on other accounts. The accounts have not been resolved (1.h).

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(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant made substantial progress in resolving delinquent accounts, with most debts either satisfied or in the process of resolution; The applicant's financial situation has improved significantly, with a monthly remainder available for discretionary spending; The applicant's work performance and character references indicated reliability and integrity.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant made substantial progress in resolving delinquent accounts, with most debts either satisfied or in the process of resolution.
• The applicant's financial situation has improved significantly, with a monthly remainder available for discretionary spending.
• The applicant's work performance and character references indicated reliability and integrity.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedDec 7, 2015
• Answer filedJan 5, 2016
• Hearing heldApr 28, 2016
• Decision dateApr 25, 2017

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
• Significant Improvement in Financial Status as a Basis for Granting Clearance
• Consideration of Personal Circumstances Affecting Financial Difficulties