Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 47-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to a history of financial difficulties stemming from a divorce and loss of income. She demonstrated efforts to resolve her debts, including negotiating a mortgage modification and establishing payment plans. The judge found sufficient mitigation of the financial concerns and granted her security clearance.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The mortgage foreclosure, listed with an outstanding balance of $7,105 in SOR 1.a, is being resolved through a loan modification that she began negotiating in October 2014, but did not become effective until June 2015 because her former husband would not give her a quitclaim deed until then. The modified mortgage balance includes the outstanding balance. Her new monthly payment is $441. It is being resolved (1.a). The $2,340 charged-off account alleged in SOR 1.c is Applicant’s mother’s responsibility, and her mother is making monthly payments of $100 on the debt. The balance is $1,500. The $2,409 debt listed in SOR 1.r is a duplicate of that debt. It is being resolved (1.c). Applicant intends to arrange payments for the following medical debts listed on the SOR upon receipt of her 2015 tax refund: 1.e for $453; 1.g for $355; 1.l for $70; and 1.n for $566 (1.d). Applicant intends to arrange payments for the following medical debts listed on the SOR upon receipt of her 2015 tax refund: 1.e for $453; 1.g for $355; 1.l for $70; and 1.n for $566 (1.e). Applicant intends to arrange payments for the following medical debts listed on the SOR upon receipt of her 2015 tax refund: 1.e for $453; 1.g for $355; 1.l for $70; and 1.n for $566 (1.g). These SOR debts are on a payment plan with the same collection agency: 1.(h) for $271; 1.i)for $248; 1.m for $422; and 1.o for $422. Applicant co-signed with her mother on these accounts. Her mother is making monthly payments of $100 (1.h). These SOR debts are on a payment plan with the same collection agency: 1.(h) for $271; 1.i)for $248; 1.m for $422; and 1.o for $422. Applicant co-signed with her mother on these accounts. Her mother is making monthly payments of $100 (1.i). Applicant intends to arrange payments for the following medical debts listed on the SOR upon receipt of her 2015 tax refund: 1.e for $453; 1.g for $355; 1.l for $70; and 1.n for $566 (1.l). These SOR debts are on a payment plan with the same collection agency: 1.(h) for $271; 1.i)for $248; 1.m for $422; and 1.o for $422. Applicant co-signed with her mother on these accounts. Her mother is making monthly payments of $100 (1.m). Applicant intends to arrange payments for the following medical debts listed on the SOR upon receipt of her 2015 tax refund: 1.e for $453; 1.g for $355; 1.l for $70; and 1.n for $566 (1.n). These SOR debts are on a payment plan with the same collection agency: 1.(h) for $271; 1.i)for $248; 1.m for $422; and 1.o for $422. Applicant co-signed with her mother on these accounts. Her mother is making monthly payments of $100 (1.o). Applicant disputed the $1,216 debt in SOR 1.p, related to her son’s stolen cell phone. She stated that she reported it to the creditor, but it did not promptly close the account (1.p). The $2,340 charged-off account alleged in SOR 1.c is Applicant’s mother’s responsibility, and her mother is making monthly payments of $100 on the debt. The balance is $1,500. The $2,409 debt listed in SOR 1.r is a duplicate of that debt. It is being resolved (1.r). Applicant was making payments on the medical debts in SOR: 1.s for $123; 1.t for $150; and 1.u for $167. She thinks she paid about $80 to the collection agency for the debts but was unable to make the final payments because she did not have enough money to do so. She intends to pay them (1.s). Applicant was making payments on the medical debts in SOR: 1.s for $123; 1.t for $150; and 1.u for $167. She thinks she paid about $80 to the collection agency for the debts but was unable to make the final payments because she did not have enough money to do so. She intends to pay them (1.t). Applicant was making payments on the medical debts in SOR: 1.s for $123; 1.t for $150; and 1.u for $167. She thinks she paid about $80 to the collection agency for the debts but was unable to make the final payments because she did not have enough money to do so. She intends to pay them (1.u). Applicant’s student loans, which total $50,000, are past due in the amount of $734, and not $3,003 as alleged in the SOR 1.v. She was unable to make the monthly payments of $245 in the winter months because she had to pay the monthly heating bills of $309. She intends to address the debt as money becomes available (1.v).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant resolved some debts and has a plan to address others; She provided evidence of good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors; The financial issues were largely beyond her control due to divorce and loss of income.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant resolved some debts and has a plan to address others.
• She provided evidence of good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors.
• The financial issues were largely beyond her control due to divorce and loss of income.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedAug 25, 2015
• Answer filedSep 23, 2015
• Hearing heldMar 1, 2016Record remained open until March 25, 2016.
• Decision dateMay 18, 2016

Cite For

• Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
• Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
• Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Stability