Summary
A 39-year-old male applicant seeking a Top Secret security clearance faced concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The government alleged that the applicant deliberately falsified his September 2011 SF 86 by failing to disclose a delinquent mortgage that was in foreclosure and had not been paid since February 2011, resulting in a 180-day delinquency as of September 2011.
The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial concerns. Evidence showed that the mortgage issues stemmed from his ex-wife's failure to make payments on a co-owned property, which was largely beyond his control. The applicant demonstrated consistent payments to his ex-wife for child support and mortgage obligations prior to the foreclosure. Furthermore, his filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and completion of financial counseling indicated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.
The judge also determined that the applicant did not intentionally omit relevant information on his security clearance application. Based on these mitigating factors, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated that his financial issues were largely due to his ex-wife's failure to make mortgage payments, which were beyond his control.
- He provided evidence of consistent payments made to his ex-wife for child support and mortgage obligations prior to the foreclosure.
- The applicant's actions to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and complete required financial counseling indicated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.
Conditions Referenced
- F.1raisedFinancial Considerations
- E.2raisedPersonal Conduct
- F.2appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial problems were largely beyond his control due to his ex-wife's failure to make mortgage payments.
- F.3appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant received credit counseling and demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts through a Chapter 13 Payment Plan.
- E.2appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's failure to disclose the mortgage delinquency was not intentional, as he believed he was resolving the issue through a loan modification.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMar 29, 2013
- Answer filedJun 7, 2013
- Hearing heldAug 1, 2013via video teleconference
- Decision dateSep 18, 2013
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Ex-spouse's Actions Under Guideline F
- Non-intentional Omission of Information Under Guideline E
- Good-faith Efforts in Bankruptcy Proceedings as a Mitigating Factor