Summary
The applicant, a 66-year-old retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to unresolved financial issues, including multiple delinquent debts totaling over $69,700. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, as he did not demonstrate responsible actions to resolve his debts or substantiate claims of identity theft.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The debt in SOR ¶ 1.a ($11,316) is a charged-off account (1.a). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.b ($130 past due on balance of $630) (1.b). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.c ($393) (1.c). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.d ($342) (1.d). The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e ($31,048) is for a vehicle repossession (1.e). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f ($150) during his background interview (1.f). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g ($6,485) is for a disputed housing rental agreement (1.g). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($6,491) is owed to the same creditor (1.h). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($12,853) is owed to the same creditor (1.i).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.1.a, F.1.c. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling over $69,700, which he failed to resolve; Applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or actions taken to address his debts; Claims of identity theft were unsubstantiated and lacked supporting documentation.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling over $69,700, which he failed to resolve.
- Applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or actions taken to address his debts.
- Claims of identity theft were unsubstantiated and lacked supporting documentation.
Conditions Referenced
- F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.1.craisedA 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 issuedDec 7, 2015
- Answer filedApr 12, 2016Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
- Decision dateMar 15, 2017
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Importance of Substantiating Claims of Identity Theft
- Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Financial Issues Are Present