Summary
The applicant, a 31-year-old male with a history of financial difficulties, faced trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F due to 11 delinquent debts accumulated between 2009 and 2013. He successfully resolved 8 of these debts and demonstrated a commitment to addressing the remaining debts, leading to a decision to grant his eligibility for a public trust position.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The four educational loans referenced in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($3,936); 1.b ($3,271); 1.c ($2,932); and 1.d ($3,210) are resolved and paid (1.a). The four educational loans referenced in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($3,936); 1.b ($3,271); 1.c ($2,932); and 1.d ($3,210) are resolved and paid (1.b). The four educational loans referenced in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($3,936); 1.b ($3,271); 1.c ($2,932); and 1.d ($3,210) are resolved and paid (1.c). The four educational loans referenced in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($3,936); 1.b ($3,271); 1.c ($2,932); and 1.d ($3,210) are resolved and paid (1.d). The $2,673 medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e is owed to a hospital and is unresolved (1.e). The $392 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f was owed to an apartment complex. Applicant paid it in March 2015 (1.f). The $275 utility debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g was paid in March 2015 (1.g). Appellant disputed the $230 medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. He said it is not his debt, but belongs to his oldest child’s mother and is in her name (1.h). The $177 medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i is owed to a children’s hospital and is unresolved (1.i). The $164 utility debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j was paid in February 2016 (1.j). The $148 cell phone debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k was paid in March 2016 (1.k).
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), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: Applicant resolved 8 of 11 delinquent debts, demonstrating a commitment to financial responsibility; He provided credible testimony and evidence of a detailed budget, indicating he is managing his finances effectively; The judge found that the applicant's previous financial issues are unlikely to recur, mitigating trustworthiness concerns.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- Applicant resolved 8 of 11 delinquent debts, demonstrating a commitment to financial responsibility.
- He provided credible testimony and evidence of a detailed budget, indicating he is managing his finances effectively.
- The judge found that the applicant's previous financial issues are unlikely to recur, mitigating trustworthiness concerns.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant did not provide sufficient evidence that he acted responsibly under the circumstances.
- AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has . . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 12, 2016
- Answer filedMar 9, 2016
- Hearing heldJul 12, 2016
- Decision dateSep 20, 2016
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Trustworthiness Determinations
- Requirements for Establishing a Plan to Resolve Financial Problems