Summary
The applicant, a 44-year-old defense contractor, sought to retain his security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations stemming from debts primarily attributed to his ex-wife. The judge found that the applicant had successfully disputed the validity of most debts and demonstrated current financial stability, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Applicant consistently denies that he owes a creditor $8,461.00, for a vehicle repossession. He maintains that the vehicle was only in his third wife’s name, and she allowed the vehicle to be repossessed. He has continually disputed in writing the validity of this debt. The most recent credit reports provided by the Government and the Applicant do not show this account (1.a). The Applicant consistently denies that he owes a creditor $2,313.00 for a credit card. He maintains that the credit card was only in his third wife’s name. He has continually disputed the validity of this debt in writing. After an investigation by the credit reporting agency, this debt was deleted in January 2009 (1.b). The Applicant consistently denies that he owes a creditor $175.00 for an unknown account, which may be a payroll advance. He maintains that he has no knowledge of this debt or what it is for. He has continually disputed the validity of this debt in writing. The most recent credit reports provided by the Government and the Applicant do not show this account (1.c). The Applicant consistently denies that he owes a creditor $3,235.00 for a credit card. He maintains that he has no knowledge of this debt or what it is for. Further, the Applicant states he never had a credit card issued by this entity. He has continually disputed the validity of this debt in writing. The collection agency investigated the debt, closed out the account and submitted to have their credit line deleted from the Applicant’s credit report. In addition, after an investigation by the credit reporting agency, this debt was deleted in January 2009 (1.d). The Applicant consistently denies that he owes a creditor $917.00 for a credit card. He has continually disputed the validity of this debt in writing. The most recent credit reports reflect no past due amount and state, 'Consumer disputes after resolution.' The Applicant has another account with the same creditor, which is current (1.e). The Applicant denies that he currently owes $2,128.00 on a credit card debt. He has stated that this debt was a joint debt with his third wife. The Applicant testified that he paid approximately $1,000.00 on this account. In September 2009, the Applicant requested in writing that this creditor validate that there was a current debt owed by the Applicant. The debt has been removed from the most recent credit reports submitted by the Government and the Applicant (1.f).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant consistently disputed the validity of debts attributed to his ex-wife, successfully removing several from his credit report; He demonstrated current financial stability, being current on all debts and having a good credit history; The applicant's actions to resolve his financial issues were deemed reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant consistently disputed the validity of debts attributed to his ex-wife, successfully removing several from his credit report.
- He demonstrated current financial stability, being current on all debts and having a good credit history.
- The applicant's actions to resolve his financial issues were deemed reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened Long Ago or Infrequently
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond the Person's Control
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 30, 2008
- Answer filedOct 10, 2008
- Hearing heldFeb 9, 2009
- Decision dateMay 14, 2009
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Disputing Debts Attributed to an Ex-spouse
- Demonstrating Current Financial Stability as a Mitigating Factor