Summary
The applicant, a 63-year-old divorced individual with one adult child, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including multiple outstanding judgments and delinquent debts. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of mitigating circumstances or a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, leading to questions about his reliability and judgment.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A as the result of a judgment in the amount of about $9,878. Applicant avers, “This account has not been settled to date [the date of his June 1, 2016, Answer].” This allegation is found against Applicant (1.a). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B as the result of a second judgment in the amount of about $26,513. Applicant avers, “The judgment remains in place, however, a repayment plan was agreed upon in June 2014 and remains in effect.” As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of his averment, this allegation is found against Applicant (1.b). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor C as the result of a third judgment in the amount of about $7,173. Applicant avers, “This account has not been settled to date [the date of his June 1, 2016, Answer].” This allegation is found against Applicant (1.c). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D as the result of a past-due mortgage in the amount of about $41,958, on a balance totaling about $322,657. Applicant avers, “This loan went to foreclosure on 1/12/16. The property was put up for sale by . . . [Creditor D].” As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of his averment, such as an Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 showing his mortgage debt was forgiven and reported as income to Applicant, this allegation is found against Applicant (1.d). Applicant neither admits nor denies a past-due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $2,665. As this debt appears as past due on the Government’s December 2014 credit report (Item 4), this allegation is found against Applicant (1.e). Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of about $4,930. Applicant avers, “However, there is a repayment plan in place with . . . [Creditor F’s fiscal intermediary], which acts on behalf of . . . [Creditor F].” As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of his averment, this allegation is found against Applicant (1.f). Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor G as the result of a past-due debt in the amount of about $873. Applicant avers, “This account was settled in October 2012.” As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of his averment; and it appears on the Government’s most recent March 2016 credit report (Item 6), this allegation is found against Applicant (1.g).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant has multiple outstanding judgments and delinquent debts totaling over $90,000; The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a good-faith effort to repay debts; The applicant failed to submit any mitigating information in response to the Government's case.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has multiple outstanding judgments and delinquent debts totaling over $90,000.
- The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a good-faith effort to repay debts.
- The applicant failed to submit any mitigating information in response to the Government's case.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
Key Rule Quoted
“Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 11, 2016
- Answer filedJun 1, 2016Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
- Decision dateOct 16, 2017
Cite For
- Failure to Provide Mitigating Evidence Under Guideline F
- Significant Financial Obligations as a Disqualifying Factor
- Importance of Demonstrating Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts