Summary
The applicant, a divorced systems administrator with a military background, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including approximately $42,000 in debt and a judgment against him. Despite some mitigating circumstances related to family obligations, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his claims of repayment and financial stability, leading to concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: $705. Applicant made a payment of $234.46 on August 29, 2008. Applicant avers he paid the debt completely in January 2009, but was unable to produce documentation. Applicant still owes the account (1.a). $396. Applicant claims the creditors in SOR 1.b. and 1.i. ($635) describe the same creditor for different accounts. A representative of the collection agency agreed to accept a settlement of $200 to pay both accounts. No supporting documentation showing payment of the settlement has been produced (1.b). $8,162. This account was opened in May 2000, and became delinquent in October 2007. Applicant indicated (with documentation) he paid $709 on March 2 and March 4, 2009. However, he provided no documentation of paying $390 on March 15, 2009, which he claimed he did 'to catch them back up'. Furthermore, there is no indication from the creditor that Applicant’s payments restored the account to good standing (1.c). $5,216. The final activity on this account was in June 2006. Applicant says that he has been paying $300 every month to a collection firm since November 2008. Even though Applicant stated the collection firm did not provide information about payments, Applicant could have provided the same type of documentary proof he provided in response to SOR 1.c., with internet printouts of his checking account. He still owes this account (1.d). $1,929. Applicant claimed he had paid them $800. No documentation was provided to support his claim of payments. Applicant is still responsible for this account (1.e). $1,295. Applicant claimed in his response to the FORM he paid $647 to the collection agency to pay the account off. The documentation in the attachment shows he paid $647.75 in settlement of the delinquent account. This allegation is resolved in his favor (1.f). $15,286. The last activity on the account was in November 2005. Applicant indicates that he has not found the current holder of the account. SOR 1.g. is resolved against Applicant (1.g). $931. Applicant claimed he paid this delinquent account but had not received the receipt. As he had done with SOR 1.c., Applicant could have provided documentation from his bank account or internet that the debt was paid. Applicant is still responsible for the account (1.h). $635. Applicant states he received an offer of settlement of $200 to pay this debt and the account in SOR 1.b. Applicant has not provided verification that he paid the settlement (1.i). $8,441. A judgment was filed against Applicant in April 2007. This judgment is resolved against Applicant (1.j).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions FC DC 19.a., FC DC 19.c.. The judge applied mitigating conditions FC MC 20.b., FC MC 20.d.. The decision turned on the following: The applicant owes approximately $42,000 in overdue accounts, indicating an inability to satisfy debts; The applicant failed to provide documentation to substantiate claims of payments made to creditors; The applicant did not demonstrate participation in financial counseling or evidence of financial stability.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant owes approximately $42,000 in overdue accounts, indicating an inability to satisfy debts.
- The applicant failed to provide documentation to substantiate claims of payments made to creditors.
- The applicant did not demonstrate participation in financial counseling or evidence of financial stability.
Conditions Referenced
- FC DC 19.a.raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- FC DC 19.c.raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- FC MC 20.b.appliedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- FC MC 20.d.rejectedIndividual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay CreditorsLimited application due to insufficient documentation of payments.
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 10, 2008
- Answer filedDec 8, 2008
- Hearing heldApr 6, 2009Decision made on the record in lieu of a hearing.
- Decision dateApr 6, 2009
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims of Financial Stability
- Mitigating Conditions Related to Family Obligations and Unexpected Financial Burdens