Summary
The applicant, a 28-year-old technical writer and former U.S. Navy service member, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,730. Despite some debts being settled, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient financial responsibility or a plan to address remaining debts, leading to the conclusion that he did not mitigate the security concerns raised.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Collection account in the amount of $10,923 has been disputed since 2007 (1.a). Debt in SOR 1.b ($2,301) has been deleted according to a 2013 Experian credit report (1.b). Debt in SOR 1.c ($1,650) is the result of a 2010 automobile accident; plans to make arrangements to pay the settlement amount (1.c). Debt in SOR 1.d ($1,505) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.d). Debt in SOR 1.e ($881) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.e). Debt in SOR 1.f ($84) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.f). Debt in SOR 1.g is paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.g). Debt in SOR 1.h ($790) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.h). Debt in SOR 1.i ($746) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.i). Debt in SOR 1.j ($197) is another medical account from an accident; stated it has been paid by the insurance company (1.j). Debt in SOR 1.k ($105) is another medical account from the accident; stated it has been paid but did not submit documentation (1.k). Debt in SOR 1.l ($776) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.l). Debt in SOR 1.m ($156) has been paid and confirmed by documentation and credit report (1.m). Debt in SOR 1.n ($825) is an additional medical account resulting from an accident; stated it has been paid by insurance but did not submit documentation (1.n). Debt in SOR 1.o ($1,480) is an additional medical account resulting from an accident; stated it has been paid by insurance but did not submit documentation (1.o).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,730; The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate a plan for resolving remaining debts; The applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of immediate action to resolve debts raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,730.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate a plan for resolving remaining debts.
- The applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of immediate action to resolve debts raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe applicant's financial difficulties were recent and ongoing.
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control and the Individual Acted Responsibly Under the CircumstancesThe applicant did not provide evidence that the delinquencies were beyond his control.
- AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant failed to show a plan for the remaining delinquent debts.
- AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant did not present evidence of financial counseling.
Key Rule Quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJul 25, 2013
- Answer filed—Applicant requested an administrative determination in lieu of a hearing.
- Hearing held—No hearing was held.
- Decision dateFeb 12, 2014
Cite For
- Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
- Importance of Providing Documentation to Support Claims of Debt Resolution