Summary
The applicant, a 37-year-old federal contractor, faced trustworthiness concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous debts and failure to disclose financial obligations on her Public Trust Application. The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns by demonstrating a commitment to resolving her debts and providing credible explanations for her omissions. Eligibility for a public trust position was granted.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: $107 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.a). $998 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.b). $731 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.c). $150 Medical Paid (1.d). $150 Medical Unpaid - to be included in payment plan (1.e). $86 Medical Paid (1.f). $100 Medical Paid (1.g). $512 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.h). $830 Depart. store Unpaid - former joint account- charged off (1.i). $100 Phone Paid (1.j). $8,532 Student loan Current (1.k). $8,484 Student loan Current (1.l). $1,030 Paid 5/07 (1.m). $7,737 Student loan Current (1.n). $9,119 Student loan Current (1.o). $1,411 Judgment Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.p). $213 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.q). $59 Medical Paid (1.r). $134 Medical Unpaid-to be included in payment plan (1.s). $205 Company Unpaid (1.t). $207 Credit card Charged off in 8/01 (1.u). $1,820 Credit card Disputed (1.v).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19.a, F.19.c, E.16.a. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20.d, F.20.e, E.15. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts, having paid off several and entered into a repayment plan; The applicant provided credible explanations for her omissions on the e-QIP, which were deemed negligent rather than intentional; The applicant's financial situation showed improvement, and she had not incurred additional debts since starting her current job.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts, having paid off several and entered into a repayment plan.
- The applicant provided credible explanations for her omissions on the e-QIP, which were deemed negligent rather than intentional.
- The applicant's financial situation showed improvement, and she had not incurred additional debts since starting her current job.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
- F.20.eappliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt
- E.15rejectedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty, or Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and RegulationsThe judge found the applicant's omissions were negligent and not intentional.
Key Rule Quoted
“"An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s state of mind at the time the omission occurred."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 7, 2007
- Answer filedMar 30, 2007
- Hearing heldJun 4, 2007
- Decision dateJun 30, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Through Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Credibility of Applicant's Explanations for Omissions on Security Clearance Applications
- Application of the Whole Person Concept in Trustworthiness Determinations.