Summary
The applicant, a 33-year-old male with a background in law enforcement and information technology, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,000. Despite demonstrating some efforts to manage his finances, the applicant failed to provide a viable plan to resolve his longstanding debts, leading to concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admitted the four delinquent medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($165), 1.b ($56), 1.j ($75), and 1.k ($52). All four debts have been delinquent since 2008. Applicant has not made any payments or otherwise attempted to resolve them (1.a). Applicant admitted the four delinquent medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($165), 1.b ($56), 1.j ($75), and 1.k ($52). All four debts have been delinquent since 2008. Applicant has not made any payments or otherwise attempted to resolve them (1.b). Applicant admitted the debt for technical training, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. He testified that the tuition was being paid by his employer until he was suspended in July 2010. (Tr. 61-63.) The debt is unresolved (1.c). Applicant denied three debts to a credit union, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d-1.f, which have been delinquent since 2003 (1.d). The largest, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e, is a deficiency of $8,094 after a voluntary repossession of a car. He disputed the repossession debt because the credit union has not told him how much it received from the auction of the repossessed car (1.e). Applicant denied three debts to a credit union, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d-1.f, which have been delinquent since 2003 (1.f). Applicant admitted the three delinquent student loans alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g ($8,524), 1.l ($2,625), and 1.m ($3,999) (1.g). Applicant denied two debts to the same credit union, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i, which have been delinquent since January 2006 (1.h). Applicant denied two debts to the same credit union, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i, which have been delinquent since January 2006 (1.i). Applicant admitted the four delinquent medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($165), 1.b ($56), 1.j ($75), and 1.k ($52). All four debts have been delinquent since 2008. Applicant has not made any payments or otherwise attempted to resolve them (1.j). Applicant admitted the four delinquent medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($165), 1.b ($56), 1.j ($75), and 1.k ($52). All four debts have been delinquent since 2008. Applicant has not made any payments or otherwise attempted to resolve them (1.k). Applicant admitted the three delinquent student loans alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g ($8,524), 1.l ($2,625), and 1.m ($3,999) (1.l). Applicant admitted the three delinquent student loans alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g ($8,524), 1.l ($2,625), and 1.m ($3,999) (1.m). Applicant denied the jewelry store debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n and testified that he had paid it in full. He promised to submit his receipts after the hearing. However, he did not submit any receipts (1.n). Applicant testified he was unaware of the two unsatisfied judgments alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o and 1.p until he received copies of the court documents from Department Counsel. They remain unresolved (1.o). Applicant testified he was unaware of the two unsatisfied judgments alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o and 1.p until he received copies of the court documents from Department Counsel. They remain unresolved (1.p).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 19(e). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling about $37,000, which he has not resolved; He admitted to negligence regarding his student loan payments after returning to work; The applicant failed to provide a plan for resolving his longstanding delinquent debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling about $37,000, which he has not resolved.
- He admitted to negligence regarding his student loan payments after returning to work.
- The applicant failed to provide a plan for resolving his longstanding delinquent debts.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 19(e)appliedConsistent Spending Beyond One’s Means
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's delinquent debts are ongoing and numerous.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's ControlWhile some debts were due to injury, the applicant did not act responsibly in resolving them.
- AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant sought advice from a financial advisor.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not present a plan to resolve his longstanding debts.
- AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant did not provide evidence to substantiate his disputes.
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 8, 2010
- Answer filedJul 29, 2010
- Hearing heldOct 25, 2010
- Decision dateJan 31, 2011
Cite For
- Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Burden of Proof in Security Clearance Cases