Summary
A 44-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited three delinquent student loans totaling $20,260, a $601 medical debt, and two additional delinquent debts of $787 and $771. These issues raised disqualifying conditions F.19(a) and F.19(c) related to financial considerations, and E.16(a) concerning personal conduct.
The judge determined that the applicant successfully mitigated the financial concerns. She settled two of the delinquent debts and established a repayment plan for her student loans. Regarding the $601 medical debt, the applicant could not identify it, and it was not present on her most recent credit report.
Crucially, the judge found insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant intentionally falsified her SF 86 security clearance application. Based on these mitigating factors, including F.20(a), F.20(b), F.20(d), and E.15, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant settled two delinquent debts and established a repayment plan for her student loans.
- The applicant was unable to identify a medical debt, which was not listed on her most recent credit report.
- There was insufficient evidence to determine that the applicant intentionally falsified her SF 86.
Conditions referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe judge found insufficient evidence to determine intentional falsification.
- F.20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to Recur
- F.20(b)appliedConditions Resulting in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- F.20(d)appliedIndividual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
- E.15rejectedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with RulesThe judge found no evidence of intentional falsification.
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJun 10, 2016
- Answer filedJun 21, 2016Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decided on the written record.
- Decision dateJun 5, 2017
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Through Repayment Efforts
- Insufficient Evidence for Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Application
- Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions