Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 39-year-old operational clerk for a defense contractor, faced trustworthiness concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts and a falsified response on her security questionnaire. Despite some mitigating factors, the judge found insufficient evidence of financial stability and responsibility, leading to a denial of her application for a public trust position.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: You falsified material facts on a questionnaire for public trust positions executed by you on or about August 21, 2007, and later amended by you on September 11, 2007 (2.a). Medical Debt ($146) – UNPAID – Applicant admits this account remains delinquent. This amount represents a co-pay incurred by Applicant for dental work performed between 1999 and 2002 (1.a). Auto Repossession ($10,760) – UNPAID – Applicant denies this allegation. She purchased a 1998 vehicle for about $16,000 which was voluntarily repossessed sometime around late 2002. She testified that she paid the balance down to about $10,000 at the time of repossession and that the auto was to be auctioned, but Applicant offered no evidence to substantiate these assertions (1.b). Financial Loan ($3,346) – UNPAID – Applicant denies this allegation, which was charged off as bad debt in 2002. The loan originated in 2000 as a $600 loan for vehicle repairs. It was renewed with a high credit noted as $684 before she was laid off in late 2002. Interest and fees have increased the balance owed considerably (1.c). Bank Debt ($2533.45) – IN DISPUTE – Applicant denies this allegation, which was referred for collection around March 2003. Applicant disputed this account with TransUnion and/or Experian (1.d). Utility Bill ($676) – UNPAID – Applicant denies this allegation, stating the account belongs to her estranged husband. No evidence to that effect was introduced (1.e). Communications Bill ($175) – UNPAID – Applicant denies this allegation, noting she has no recollection of using this service provider (1.f). Communications Bill ($488) – UNPAID – Applicant admits this allegation and acknowledges the balance owed (1.g). Medical Debt ($600) – PAID – Applicant admits this allegation, regarding a debt incurred for medical treatment after a car accident between 2003 and 2005. Applicant provided evidence that her balance was paid and currently has a zero balance (1.h). Credit Card ($1,369) – UNPAID – Applicant admits this allegation, noting it was a card kept on hand between about 1998 and 1992 for the purchase of larger items (1.i). Bank Financed Purchase ($292) – UNPAID – Applicant admits this allegation, noting that it was incurred in the purchase of a correspondence course designed to learn new skills. She was unaware the course would continue to bill her account after receipt of its initial mailings (1.j).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts, demonstrating an inability to manage financial obligations; The applicant's falsification of her financial status on the security questionnaire raised concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness; Despite some mitigating circumstances, the applicant failed to show sufficient progress in addressing her financial issues over several years.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts, demonstrating an inability to manage financial obligations.
• The applicant's falsification of her financial status on the security questionnaire raised concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
• Despite some mitigating circumstances, the applicant failed to show sufficient progress in addressing her financial issues over several years.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to [sensitive] information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedOct 17, 2008
• Answer filedUndated
• Hearing heldApr 1, 2009
• Decision dateJun 23, 2009

Cite For

• Evaluation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
• Impact of Falsification on Trustworthiness Determinations Under Guideline E
• Application of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions