Summary
The applicant, a 33-year-old machinist with a history of military service, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple delinquent debts and a pattern of misconduct during his military service. The judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of effort to resolve debts raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant received nonjudicial punishment in April 2000 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and dereliction of duty (2.a). In November 2000, he was punished for unauthorized absence (2.b). He was punished again in February 2001 for disobedience (2.c). In September 2002, he was punished for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and disobedience (2.d). He received a general discharge under honorable conditions for a 'pattern of misconduct.' (2.e). In May 2004, he was convicted of driving under the influence (2.f). In June 2004, he was convicted for multiple traffic violations including HOV violation and no seatbelt (2.g). In June 2004, he was cited for tinted windows, which was dismissed (2.h). In July 2004, he was fined for loud music (2.i). In September 2004, he was fined for violating a restricted license and noise, with the restricted license charge dismissed (2.j). In September 2004, he was convicted of speeding and improper lane change (2.k). In September 2006, he was convicted of driving on a suspended license (2.l). In February 2007, he was convicted of speeding; the concealed weapon charge was dismissed (2.m). In December 2007, he was convicted of operating a radar device (2.n). In September 2008, he was charged with failure to obey a traffic signal and driving on a suspended license, both of which were nolle prosequi (2.o). In June 2009, he was found guilty of operating an uninspected vehicle (2.p). In March 2010, he was cited for contempt of court, which was dismissed after rescheduling (2.q). In May 2010, he was cited for contempt of court, which he denied (2.r). In November 2010, he was cited for contempt of court, which was dismissed after rescheduling (2.s). He provided false information during a personal subject interview regarding his military discharge (2.t). He provided false information in response to DOHA interrogatories (2.u). In December 2013, he was convicted of failure to obey a highway sign (2.v). collection account for cell phone ($227) (1.a). collection account for child support ($1,256) (1.b). collection account for child support ($6,636) (1.c). charged-off car loan ($29,226) (1.d).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 16(b). 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 multiple delinquent debts, including a charged-off car loan and child support obligations, indicating financial irresponsibility; The applicant's history of military misconduct and traffic violations demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and lack of compliance with rules and regulations; The applicant failed to provide evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve his financial issues or seek financial counseling.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has multiple delinquent debts, including a charged-off car loan and child support obligations, indicating financial irresponsibility.
- The applicant's history of military misconduct and traffic violations demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and lack of compliance with rules and regulations.
- The applicant failed to provide evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve his financial issues or seek financial counseling.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 16(b)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe judge concluded that the applicant's omission of a disciplinary action was not intentional.
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Infrequent
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived or Receiving Counseling
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts
- AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 16, 2014
- Answer filedAug 11, 2014
- Hearing heldNov 21, 2014
- Decision dateDec 5, 2014
Cite For
- Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
- Pattern of Misconduct in Military Service as a Concern Under Guideline E
- Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Denial of Clearance.