Summary
The applicant, a 37-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to 24 delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,946. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient progress in resolving these debts, leading to the denial of his security clearance application.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: SOR ¶ 1.a ($1,343). Applicant had a telecommunications account related to the collection agent in SOR ¶ 1.a (1.a). SOR ¶ 1.c ($100). Applicant had a medical account, which he said he planned to pay (1.c). SOR ¶ 1.d ($2,596). Applicant did not recognize this account (1.d). SOR ¶ 1.g ($8,673). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g pertains to a vehicle loan account (1.g). SOR ¶ 1.i ($177). These two debts are from collection agencies and Applicant did not recognize the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j (1.i). SOR ¶ 1.m ($13,000). Applicant admitted responsibility for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.m, which pertains to a vehicle loan account (1.m). SOR ¶ 1.n ($148). Applicant admitted responsibility for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.n ($148) and 1.o ($718) (1.n).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant did not make sufficient progress resolving his delinquent debts; He failed to provide documentation to establish the resolution of significant debts totaling about $22,000; The applicant did not receive financial counseling and did not act responsibly to resolve his debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant did not make sufficient progress resolving his delinquent debts.
- He failed to provide documentation to establish the resolution of significant debts totaling about $22,000.
- The applicant did not receive financial counseling and did not act responsibly to resolve his debts.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant showed some recent good faith in contacting creditors and seeking payment plans.
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant's salary was reduced due to a work reassignment.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under ControlThe applicant did not receive financial counseling.
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's delinquent debts are a continuing course of conduct.
- AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide documentation contesting the validity of any debts.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the Applicant meeting the criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 13, 2009
- Answer filedJun 5, 2009
- Hearing heldJul 21, 2009
- Decision dateAug 3, 2009
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Progress in Resolving Delinquent Debts
- Impact of Financial Counseling on Security Clearance Eligibility