Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old former Army staff sergeant, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to numerous delinquent debts attributed to periods of unemployment and financial mismanagement. Despite some efforts to address his debts, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible financial behavior, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The debt in SOR ¶ 1.a ($3,552) is for a personal loan Applicant obtained in 2006 while he was still in the military (1.a). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.b ($4,059) are being serviced by the same lender who has agreed to Applicant’s participation in a loan rehabilitation program (1.b). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.c ($1,754) are being serviced by the same lender who has agreed to Applicant’s participation in a loan rehabilitation program (1.c). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.d ($6,959) are being serviced by the same lender who has agreed to Applicant’s participation in a loan rehabilitation program (1.d). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.e ($3,217) are being serviced by the same lender who has agreed to Applicant’s participation in a loan rehabilitation program (1.e). The debt in SOR ¶1.f ($5,406) is a loan that has been charged off (1.f). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.g ($3,000) is to reimburse the Department of Veteran’s Affairs for a loan he received (1.g). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.h $2,853 is a credit card account that has been charged off (1.h). Applicant disputed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($1,094) for cellular telephone service (1.i). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.j ($3,144) appear to be from the same lender (1.j). The student loans in SOR ¶ 1.k ($4,390) appear to be from the same lender (1.k). Applicant believed the student loan in SOR ¶ 1.l was consolidated with other loans (1.l).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that he was unable or unwilling to pay; Applicant failed to address his overdue debts even when he had a substantial income; Applicant's financial problems date back to his time in the Army and continued during his civilian employment.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that he was unable or unwilling to pay.
- Applicant failed to address his overdue debts even when he had a substantial income.
- Applicant's financial problems date back to his time in the Army and continued during his civilian employment.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant's unemployment was beyond his control, but he did not act responsibly regarding his debts.
- AG ¶ 20(d)appliedIndividual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsApplicant made some small payments towards some debts.
- AG ¶ 20(e)appliedIndividual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtApplicant disputed the telephone debt.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 19, 2012
- Answer filedJan 16, 2013
- Hearing heldApr 18, 2013via video teleconference
- Decision dateMay 6, 2013
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Importance of Responsible Financial Behavior in Security Clearance Evaluations
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Adjudication Decisions.