Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 31-year-old computer technician for a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial difficulties stemming from a contentious divorce and actions by his ex-wife. The judge found that the applicant had made substantial progress in resolving his debts and demonstrated improved financial stability, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: This refers to the automobile finance account with a high credit of $14,396, for which a judgment was filed in August 2008 in the amount of $3,857. Applicant contended that the vehicle was eventually repossessed and sold, leaving no deficiency. Although the account was paid in full to the satisfaction of the creditor on January 9, 2012 - over four years before the SOR was issued – the 2015 credit report continued to report the false narrative that the account was still outstanding. The account has been resolved (1.a). This refers to a power utility account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $514 that was placed for collection in 2008. Applicant contended that he had given his wife funds to pay the bill but she failed to do so. He had forgotten about the bill until it was brought up during his August 2015 interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Applicant immediately paid the creditor $250 before the SOR was issued, and he made the remaining payment on July 22, 2016, the week following the hearing. The account now has a zero balance. The account has been resolved (1.b). This refers to a furniture rental and installment sales account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $464 that was placed for collection and charged off in August 2009. Applicant stated that his wife had opened the account in his name without his knowledge. When he contacted the creditor, he was informed that the furniture had been repossessed, and there was no further balance. He also said that if there were an outstanding balance, he would pay it off. Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contentions, so I am unable to determine the true status of the account. The account has not been resolved (1.c). This refers to an unspecified credit union account with a high credit of $8,637 and zero unpaid and past-due balances that was placed for collection. An unspecified amount was charged off in August 2009. Applicant contended that this account is a duplicate of the account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g., but he is in error, for he is confusing two separate credit union accounts. Applicant offered no documentary evidence that this particular account had been addressed or resolved. The account has not been resolved (1.d). This refers to snapshots of the same credit union credit card account with a $1,500 credit limit that was placed for collection. An unspecified amount was charged off, and the account was sold to a debt purchaser identified as a factoring company. The debt purchaser reported the unpaid balance to be $1,786. On July 15, 2016 – two days after the hearing – Applicant paid the debt purchaser $1,075, and the account is considered by that company to have a zero balance. The account has been resolved (1.e). This refers to a cellular phone account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $398 that was placed for collection. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he was currently paying the creditor. While Applicant failed to submit documentation to specifically reflect payments made, such as receipts, cancelled checks, or bank account statements, it appears that the account was resolved on July 19, 2016. On that date, the creditor referred to amendments having been filed with the credit bureaus to report the account had been paid as a collection account. The account has been resolved (1.f). This refers to two medical accounts with unpaid balances of $501 and $358 that were placed for collection. Applicant disputed the debts, claiming that they were his late father’s debts, but he acknowledged that he never attempted to contact the creditors or collection agents to follow up on his disputes. In the absence of documentation to support Applicant’s contentions regarding the accounts being his father’s accounts, as well as no evidence of resolution efforts by Applicant, I conclude that the accounts have not been resolved (1.g). This refers to an unspecified type of education-related account with an unpaid balance of $253 that was placed for collection. Applicant claimed that the account had been paid in November 2015, before the SOR was issued. On an unspecified date, the collection agent issued a paid in full letter. The account has been resolved (1.h). This refers to a nutrition company account with an unpaid balance of $62 that was placed for collection in 2011. Applicant claimed that his wife opened the account in his name without his knowledge after they separated. On January 5, 2016 – nearly three months before the SOR was issued – Applicant paid the collection agent, and that agent considers the account paid in full. The account has been resolved (1.i). This refers to a medical account with an estimated unpaid balance of $3,000 that arose in August 2010. The charges were associated with a motorcycle accident when a vehicle driven by an unknown driver ran Applicant off the road and fled the scene. Applicant did not have health insurance at the time and had insufficient funds to pay the hospital charges. In his e-QIP, Applicant said he had attempted to resolve the account by contacting the creditor, but he was unable to do so because all he got was 'the run around.' During his OPM interview, Applicant estimated the unpaid balance. In his Answer to the SOR, he admitted that the $3,000 was still unpaid. However, during the hearing, Applicant disputed that estimate, and he questioned if there was any medical record to support the existence of an unpaid balance. Although offered the opportunity to give some closure to the allegation, Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contentions that the account had been resolved or that he had been cleared of responsibility for it. The account has not been resolved (1.j). This refers to Applicant’s state-mandated child support of $696.40 each month for the noncustodial support of his three daughters. Although there is documentation reflecting that amount, Applicant testified that he actually pays $710 plus $119 for arrearage each month for the three older children to his ex-wife, plus $700 to the mother of his youngest child. Applicant acknowledged that during periods of unemployment, he sometimes failed to make full monthly payments because he had insufficient funds to do so. In 2014, Applicant’s ex-wife deposited the children with him at his mother’s residence (where he too was residing), and she left town to avoid an arrest warrant for a period initially estimated to be four months, but later described as nearly one year. During the period the children resided with him, he did not pay any child support. Applicant went to court to obtain physical custody of his children when his ex-wife returned, but the court refused to order the change. Applicant was not ordered to pay any child custody covering the period during which the children resided with him. Because of the way the allegation was framed, it merely alleges that Applicant failed to pay the state-mandated child support on multiple occasions, but there is no allegation that Applicant has failed to take steps to resolve the account as of the date of the SOR. The account is in the process of being resolved (1.k). This refers to a medical account with an estimated unpaid balance of $3,000 that arose in August 2010. The charges were associated with a motorcycle accident when a vehicle driven by an unknown driver ran Applicant off the road and fled the scene. Applicant did not have health insurance at the time and had insufficient funds to pay the hospital charges. In his e-QIP, Applicant said he had attempted to resolve the account by contacting the creditor, but he was unable to do so because all he got was 'the run around.' During his OPM interview, Applicant estimated the unpaid balance. In his Answer to the SOR, he admitted that the $3,000 was still unpaid. However, during the hearing, Applicant disputed that estimate, and he questioned if there was any medical record to support the existence of an unpaid balance. Although offered the opportunity to give some closure to the allegation, Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contentions that the account had been resolved or that he had been cleared of responsibility for it. The account has not been resolved (1.l). This refers to Applicant’s state-mandated child support of $696.40 each month for the noncustodial support of his three daughters. Although there is documentation reflecting that amount, Applicant testified that he actually pays $710 plus $119 for arrearage each month for the three older children to his ex-wife, plus $700 to the mother of his youngest child. Applicant acknowledged that during periods of unemployment, he sometimes failed to make full monthly payments because he had insufficient funds to do so. In 2014, Applicant’s ex-wife deposited the children with him at his mother’s residence (where he too was residing), and she left town to avoid an arrest warrant for a period initially estimated to be four months, but later described as nearly one year. During the period the children resided with him, he did not pay any child support. Applicant went to court to obtain physical custody of his children when his ex-wife returned, but the court refused to order the change. Applicant was not ordered to pay any child custody covering the period during which the children resided with him. Because of the way the allegation was framed, it merely alleges that Applicant failed to pay the state-mandated child support on multiple occasions, but there is no allegation that Applicant has failed to take steps to resolve the account as of the date of the SOR. The account is in the process of being resolved (1.m).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.3, F.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.3, F.2, F.1. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated substantial progress in resolving delinquent debts; He engaged a credit repair organization and reached out to creditors to settle accounts; The applicant's financial status showed significant improvement and was under control.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant demonstrated substantial progress in resolving delinquent debts.
• He engaged a credit repair organization and reached out to creditors to settle accounts.
• The applicant's financial status showed significant improvement and was under control.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedMar 25, 2016
• Answer filedApr 7, 2016
• Hearing heldJul 13, 2016
• Decision dateApr 20, 2017

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
• Substantial Progress in Resolving Debts as a Factor in Clearance Decisions
• Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations and Clearance Eligibility