Summary
A 38-year-old linguist, employed by a government contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from a 1992 drug-related conviction and unresolved delinquent debts totaling $15,098.
The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's incorrect answers on three security-related documents regarding his 1992 conviction. Additionally, it listed several delinquent debts, including amounts of $6,344, $90, $783, $970, and $300. Disqualifying conditions F.19(a), F.19(c), and E.16(a) were raised, while mitigating conditions F.20(b), F.20(d), and E.17(a) were applied.
Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of progress in resolving his delinquent debts and did not present a credible plan for addressing his financial issues. Although the judge acknowledged the applicant's misunderstanding of questions about his past conviction, this did not sufficiently mitigate the personal conduct concerns.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of progress in resolving delinquent debts.
- The applicant's misunderstanding of questions regarding his drug-related conviction did not mitigate the concerns raised by his personal conduct.
- The applicant did not demonstrate a credible plan for addressing his financial issues.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
- F.20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his financial issues were beyond his control.
- F.20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not provide evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.
- E.17(a)rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant's admissions were not considered prompt or sufficient to mitigate the concerns.
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 20, 2012
- Answer filedSep 13, 2012Requested decision without a hearing.
- Hearing held—
- Decision dateJan 30, 2013
Cite For
- Failure to Demonstrate Sufficient Progress in Resolving Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
- Misunderstanding of Questions Regarding Past Conduct Under Guideline E
- Criteria for Evaluating Personal Conduct and Financial Considerations in Security Clearance Cases.