Loading case…

Summary

The Applicant, a 32-year-old defense contractor, faced issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to approximately $11,000 in debts and two domestic violence incidents. The Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her debts and the criminal conduct was not recent, leading to a decision to grant her security clearance.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Applicant owes a department store $641.00 which was charged off as a bad debt (1.a). She is indebted to a credit card company in the amount of $2,343.00, which was charged off (1.b). The Applicant is indebted to another credit card company in the amount of $6,178.00, which was charged off (1.c). The Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $306.00, which she paid off in May 2002 (1.d). In February 2000, a $1,448.07 judgment was entered against the Applicant, which resulted in a $25.00 per week garnishment of the Applicant's wages (1.e). In June 1996, the Applicant was arrested and charged with battery. The Applicant admits she was arrested, but denies being charged with battery. She indicates the charge was domestic violence. The police report (Ex 7) indicates in the narrative, block 25, the Applicant was arrested for "domestic assault," although the charge is listed in block 15 of the report as "battery." The Applicant alleges a former boyfriend had been drinking when he hit, choked, and restrained her, so she bite him to get him off him. When the police arrived, her then a boyfriend had a bit mark on his cheek. Each pressed charges against the other. The Applicant later dropped her charge, and the charge against her was placed on the "stet" docket. She fully complied with all the requirements related to her case being placed on the "stet" docket. The Applicant last saw her former boyfriend in January 1997 (2.a). The Applicant denies being arrested in November 1998 and being charged with battery. When the Applicant's daughter was returned from a visit by the child's father, the father attempted to push his way into the Applicant's home, she pushed the door closed. He filed a complaint with the police alleging she had hit him in the eye. Later, the sheriff's office called and asked her to come by and pick up the complaint, which she did. When everything was explained, the charges against her were dropped (2.b).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A6.1.2.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.6, E2.A6.1.3.1. The decision turned on the following: The Applicant made satisfactory arrangements to pay off the majority of her debts; The criminal conduct was not recent and involved domestic disputes unlikely to recur.

Why the applicant prevailed

• The Applicant made satisfactory arrangements to pay off the majority of her debts.
• The criminal conduct was not recent and involved domestic disputes unlikely to recur.

Conditions referenced

Key rule quoted

“The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.”

Procedural posture

• SOR issuedMay 21, 2002
• Answer filedJun 1, 2002Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
• Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
• Decision dateDec 6, 2002

Cite for

• Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
• Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Due to Recency Under Guideline J
• Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations