ISCR Case 08-10235.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-10235.h1

deniedJul 9, 2009· Hon. Joan Caton Anthony· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old married individual, employed by a government contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $23,270 in financial delinquencies. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed several specific financial concerns.

Regarding one debt of approximately $16,128, the applicant stated he was attempting to resolve it via telephone. For another account, charged-off in January 2009, the applicant provided April 7, 2009 documentation indicating the $6,398 debt had been settled. The applicant denied being more than 30 days past due on a third debt, asserting he would be current by May 1, 2009, and provided April 7, 2009 documentation from the creditor stating he had not been over 60 days past due since December 2007. For a fourth alleged debt, the applicant offered documentation of a March 5, 2009 credit card payment, but this was deemed unpersuasive as the account numbers did not match.

Despite some efforts to address specific debts, the applicant ultimately failed to mitigate the overall financial delinquencies. The decision highlighted a lack of sufficient resources to meet obligations, raising concerns about the applicant's judgment and reliability. The applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate a reliable track record of timely debt payments, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate financial delinquencies totaling approximately $23,270.
The applicant's financial situation indicated a lack of sufficient resources to meet obligations and raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate a reliable track record of timely debt payments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Financially Delinquent Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's financial issues are recent and ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate that his financial issues were beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe record does not reflect that the applicant has received financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsWhile the applicant made some efforts, they were insufficient given his financial situation.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 11, 2009
Answer filedApr 16, 2009Requested decision on the record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision on the record.
Decision dateJul 9, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Issues on Reliability and Judgment
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions.

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	With his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he had telephoned the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.a. and was attempting to resolve the debt, which totaled approximately $16,128. $16,128	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	In 1997, Applicant opened an account with the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.b. The account was charged-off in January 2009. With his answer to the SOR, Applicant provided documentation, dated April 7, 2009, to corroborate his statement that he had settled the debt of $6,398 alleged at SOR ¶ 1.b. $6,398	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	Applicant denied being more than 30 days past due on the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.c., and he asserted that he would be current on the debt as of May 1, 2009. He also provided documentation, dated April 7, 2009, from the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.c which stated that he had not been over 60 days past due on his debt to that creditor since December 2007.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant offered documentation to establish that on March 5, 2009, his credit card had been charged to satisfy the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.d. Department Counsel found Applicant’s assertion that the credit card payment satisfied the debt unpersuasive because the account number on the satisfaction letter did not match the account number identified for the account on Applicant’s July 15, 2008 credit report.	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

With his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he had telephoned the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.a. and was attempting to resolve the debt, which totaled approximately $16,128.

$16,128

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.b

In 1997, Applicant opened an account with the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.b. The account was charged-off in January 2009. With his answer to the SOR, Applicant provided documentation, dated April 7, 2009, to corroborate his statement that he had settled the debt of $6,398 alleged at SOR ¶ 1.b.

$6,398

For Applicant

Personal Loan Debt

Admitted

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

1.c

Applicant denied being more than 30 days past due on the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.c., and he asserted that he would be current on the debt as of May 1, 2009. He also provided documentation, dated April 7, 2009, from the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.c which stated that he had not been over 60 days past due on his debt to that creditor since December 2007.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant offered documentation to establish that on March 5, 2009, his credit card had been charged to satisfy the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.d. Department Counsel found Applicant’s assertion that the credit card payment satisfied the debt unpersuasive because the account number on the satisfaction letter did not match the account number identified for the account on Applicant’s July 15, 2008 credit report.

For Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES