CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00801.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00801.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00801.h1

grantedJul 19, 2017· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old technical data writer and former Air Force member was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited four delinquent debts totaling $6,400, in addition to a foreclosed mortgage debt of $127,892. Specifically, these included a $1,005 debt, a $4,376 charged-off bank debt, and a $1,025 delinquent debt owed to a homeowner’s association.

Disqualifying conditions were raised under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 19(a), (b), and (c). However, mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), (b), and (d) were applied.

The clearance was granted because all delinquent debts were resolved or paid off. The applicant demonstrated financial responsibility and a willingness to maintain financial obligations. Furthermore, character references from coworkers supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

All delinquent debts were resolved or paid off.
The applicant demonstrated financial responsibility and a willingness to maintain his financial obligations.
Character references from coworkers supported the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 8, 2016
Answer filedUndated
Hearing heldMar 15, 2017Applicant waived his right to 15 days of notice.
Decision dateMay 15, 2017Record closed on this date.

Cite For

Resolution of Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Demonstrating Financial Responsibility After Prior Issues
Character References Supporting Trustworthiness in Security Clearance Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had four delinquent debts, including a mortgage that went to foreclosure, but all debts were resolved. The applicant demonstrated financial responsibility and the judge concluded that the financial considerations security concerns were mitigated, granting eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a delinquent mortgage debt with a balance of $127,892 that went to foreclosure. $127,892	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.b	a debt for $1,005. $1,005	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.c	a charged-off bank debt for $4,376. $4,376	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	a delinquent debt for $1,025 owed to a home owner’s association. $1,025	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00801 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/19/2017 ___________

STATEMENT OF CASE

___________

HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge:

Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges a delinquent mortgage and three other delinquent debts totaling $6,400. The four debts are resolved. He has established his financial responsibility. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On June 9, 2015, Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On July 8, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, which became effective on September 1, 2006 (Sept. 1, 2006 AGs).

The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline. Applicant provided an undated response to the SOR. On August 29, 2016, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On January 10, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On February 27, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for March 15, 2017. (HE 1) Applicant waived his right to 15 days of notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing. (Transcript (Tr.) 13-14) Applicant’s hearing was held as scheduled.

During the hearing, Department Counsel offered three exhibits; Applicant offered two exhibits; there were no objections; and all proffered exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Tr. 16-18; Government Exhibits (GE) 1-3; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-B) On March 23, 2017, DOHA received a copy of the transcript of the hearing. Three exhibits were received after the hearing, and admitted into evidence without objection. (AE C-E) On May 15, 2017, the record closed. (Tr. 36, 51)

While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs) which he made applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.1

Findings of Fact2

In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted all of the SOR allegations. His admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional findings of fact follow.

Applicant is a 42-year-old technical data writer, and a defense contractor has employed him since 2008. (Tr. 6, 8, 20) In 1992, he graduated from high school. (Tr. 7) In 2010, he received a bachelor’s degree in business administration. (Tr. 7-8; GE 1) He served in the Air Force from 1996 to 2007, and he received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 6-7) He has never married, and he does not have any children. (Tr. 8) He has held a security clearance since 1996, and there is no evidence of security violations, alcohol abuse, or use of illegal drugs. (Tr. 20; GE 1)

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s SOR alleges and his credit reports, SCA, and SOR establish that Applicant had four delinquent debts. Their status is as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a delinquent mortgage debt with a balance of $127,892 that went to foreclosure. In 2004, Applicant purchased his home in state A with financing from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA). (Tr. 21, 33; GE 3) In 2008, he moved to a different state to obtain employment with his current employer. (Tr. 22) He rented his home in state A; however, the rent was insufficient to make the mortgage payments. (Tr. 22) He put the home up for sale; however, the creditor was unwilling to accept the purchaser’s offer of $72,000 in a short sale. (Tr. 23) The home went to foreclosure in 2009, and Applicant does not believe the creditor is seeking any payment from Applicant. (Tr. 23-24) There is no evidence that Applicant engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith in his involvement with the VA or the creditor.3

SOR ¶ 1.balleges a debt for $1,005. On April 4, 2017, the creditor wrote Applicant that the debt was not under collection because it was beyond the state statute of limitations. (AE C) The creditor had the account “canceled and deleted from the credit files.” (AE C) The debt became delinquent in 2009 because Applicant used his available funds in an unsuccessful attempt to keep his mortgage for his home in state A current and to keep his student loans current. (Tr. 25-26)

SOR ¶ 1.calleges a charged-off bank debt for $4,376. On April 7, 2017, Applicant paid the creditor $2,800, and the debt was settled. (AE D)

SOR ¶ 1.dalleges a delinquent debt for $1,025 owed to a home owner’s association. On April 11, 2017, the creditor wrote that the creditor was unable to locate any current debt Applicant owed to the creditor. (AE E) The letter said “The only item we were able to locate was a notice of lien recorded against the property in 2009 which was extinguished by the trustee sale that occurred later that same year.” (AE E)

Applicant timely filed and paid his taxes. (Tr. 27) He has $123,000 in his 401(k) account. (Tr. 29) He said he is willing to withdraw funds from his 401(k) if necessary to ensure all delinquent debts are resolved. (Tr. 35) He has provided some financial support to his nephew. (Tr. 30) He uses a budget, and he has focused on paying down his debts. (Tr. 32) His student loans and vehicle loans are current. (Tr. 32-33) His credit reports show most of his debts are paid as agreed.

Character Evidence

A coworker, who has known Applicant since 2006, and another coworker, who has known Applicant since 1996, described Applicant as trustworthy and reliable. (Tr. 38, 40- 41, 47-48) Their statements support retention of his access to classified information. (Tr. 38-48)

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President, Secretary of Defense, and DNI have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:

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. . . . An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . .

The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) as follows:

This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.

AG ¶ 19 includes three disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts;” “(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained:

It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply.

(internal citation omitted). Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports and SOR response. The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Five financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago,4 was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;5 and (e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

The DOHA Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

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. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) apply. Applicant’s financial problems occurred when he moved from state A for employment, and the housing market precipitously declined in state A. He was unable to rent his home in state A for sufficient rent to make the mortgage payments, and he was unable to resolve the debt through a short sale. His mortgage lender foreclosed on his home. The mortgage loan was guaranteed by the VA, and Applicant does not owe anything to the SOR ¶ 1.a creditor or the VA.

Three other delinquent SOR debts were delinquent because Applicant used his available funds in an attempt to pay the mortgage in SOR ¶ 1.a. The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.bto 1.dtotaled about $6,400. The creditor cancelled the SOR ¶ 1.bfor $1,005 and deleted it from the credit files. Applicant paid $2,800 and settled the charged-off bank debt for $4,376 in SOR ¶ 1.c. The SOR ¶ 1.ddebt for $1,025 was resolved in 2009 through the trustee sale that resolved the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a.

Based on Applicant’s track record of paying or resolving his debts, future new delinquent debt “is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on [Applicant’s] current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” and “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.” His payments of his debts showed good faith. He has sufficient income to keep his debts in current status and to continue making progress paying his remaining debts. I am confident that Applicant will conscientiously endeavor to maintain his financial responsibility. His efforts are sufficient to mitigate financial considerations security concerns.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), “[t]he ultimate determination” of whether to grant a security clearance “must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration” of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. My comments under Guideline F are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is a 42-year-old technical data writer, and he has been employed by a defense contractor since 2008. In 2010, he received a bachelor’s degree in business administration. He served in the Air Force from 1996 to 2007, and he received an honorable discharge. Two coworker described Applicant as trustworthy and reliable. Their statements support retention of his access to classified information. He has held a security clearance since 1996, and there is no evidence of security violations, alcohol abuse, or use of illegal drugs.

Applicant’s SOR debts are all resolved or paid. His credit report reflects most of his other debts are paid as agreed. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:

. . . the concept of meaningful track record necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. However, 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. The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.

ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Applicant has established a “meaningful track record” of debt payment or resolution as indicated in his credit reports. He understands what he needs to do to establish and maintain his financial responsibility. He took reasonable actions under his particular financial circumstances to address his delinquent debts.

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude that financial consideration security concerns are mitigated. It is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

_________________________ MARK HARVEY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf.

2 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. 3 The VA loan guarantee is as follows: “For loans between $45,000 and $144,000, the minimum guaranty amount is $22,500, with a maximum guaranty, of up to 40 percent of the loan up to $36,000, subject to the amount of entitlement a veteran has available.” As to whether the VA loss on a loan must be repaid, the VA explains:

Must the loan be repaid?

Yes. A VA guaranteed loan is not a gift. It must be repaid, just as you must repay any money you borrow. The VA guaranty, which protects the lender against loss, encourages the lender to make a loan with terms favorable to the veteran. But if you fail to make the payments you agreed to make, you may lose your home through foreclosure, and you and your family would probably lose all the time and money you had invested in it. If the lender does take a loss, VA must pay the guaranty to the lender, and the amount paid by VA must be repaid by you. If your loan closed on or after January 1, 1990, you will owe the Government in the event of a default only if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on your part.

Factsheet VAP 26-4 is available on the VA website at http://www.google.com/url?sa't&rct'j&q=&esrc's&frm= 1&source'web&cd=1&cad'rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.benefits.va.gov%2Fhomeloans%2Fdocs%2F vap_26-4_online_version.pdf&ei'q4QbU_zSCaST0QH0mIDwAg&usg'AF QjCNFv0-ay6SGFdfcDFlaE7aENpSq0cA. 4 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)).

5 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:

In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition].

(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).