Summary
The applicant, a 31-year-old engineer, sought to retain his security clearance after facing financial difficulties due to a series of personal hardships, including medical issues with his children. The judge found that the applicant provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns and did not deliberately omit information on his security clearance application. The decision was granted under Guideline E and Guideline F.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant did not provide a deliberately false answer in response to a question about his financial record when he completed and submitted a security clearance application in 2013 (2.a). a past-due mortgage loan on residential real estate in the amount of $4,062 with a loan balance of $162,506 (1.a). a $33,452 collection/charged-off account stemming from a home-equity loan on the same real estate (1.b). two medical collection accounts in the amounts of $1,174 and $139 (1.c). two medical collection accounts in the amounts of $1,174 and $139 (1.d).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19, AG ¶ 15. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 17. The decision turned on the following: The applicant provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate financial concerns; The applicant did not deliberately omit information on his security clearance application, as the omission was due to oversight and personal circumstances.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate financial concerns.
- The applicant did not deliberately omit information on his security clearance application, as the omission was due to oversight and personal circumstances.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
- AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct
- AG ¶ 20(b)appliedMitigating Condition for Financial ConsiderationsThe conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the applicant's control.
- AG ¶ 17appliedMitigating Condition for Personal ConductThe applicant's omission was not deliberate but rather an oversight.
Key Rule Quoted
“It is well-established law that no one has a right to a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 22, 2014
- Answer filedNov 12, 2014
- Hearing heldMar 25, 2015
- Decision dateJul 16, 2015
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Personal Hardships
- Non-deliberate Omission of Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- The Standard of Proof Required for Security Clearance Eligibility Decisions.