Summary
The applicant, a 28-year-old billing analyst for a federal contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J due to past criminal conduct and financial issues. Despite having three criminal offenses from her youth, she has not been in trouble since 2000 and has taken significant steps to manage her finances, including budgeting and negotiating debt settlements. The judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns, leading to a granted clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: for expenditures for telephone services she incurred on a business credit card she believed was covered by the company. It was not and she is responsible for the charges. Applicant has paid $450 towards the original $1,170 she owes (3.b). The utility bill listed in SOR ¶ 3.c was not paid when Applicant moved from one state to another. She has not paid it, but intends to do so (3.c). Applicant contacted all three creditors and has negotiated settlements. She has satisfied SOR ¶ 3.d (3.d). She anticipates satisfying the debt in SOR ¶ 3.e by June 2006 (3.e). Although she has a settlement offer for her debt in SOR ¶ 3.f, she is presently unable to pay the debt, but plans on doing so (3.f). Applicant incurred medical debts in July/August 2003 when she required surgery and did not have health insurance because of her part-time work status (3.g). Her medical bills are listed in SOR ¶¶ 3.g, 3.h and 3.k, and remain unpaid (3.h). The debt in SOR ¶ 3.i is for carpet cleaning when Applicant moved from an apartment. She believed because her security deposit was returned in full she did not owe anything to the apartment complex (3.i). Applicant disputes the debt listed in SOR ¶ 3.j. This account was placed for collection by the university she attended. She is insistent that the amount claimed was included as part of her student loan debt and she does not owe the university directly (3.j). Her medical bills are listed in SOR ¶¶ 3.g, 3.h and 3.k, and remain unpaid (3.k). Applicant was arrested on about November 14, 1995, and charged with (1) Unlawful Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, (2) Intent to Sell Drugs, and (3) Interstate Commerce. She pled nolo contendere and was fined approximately $500 for Count (2). Count (1) was dismissed and she forfeited bail for Count (3) (1.a). Applicant was arrested again on about July 21, 1997, for possession of cannabis. Applicant does not dispute that she was arrested, but believes the charge was for possession of drug paraphernalia. She pled no contest to the charge, but no information was provided as to what sentence she received (1.b). Applicant was arrested on May 5, 2000 for lewd conduct. The charge was dismissed (1.c).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A10.1.2.1, E2.A10.1.2.2, E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.6, E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a significant period of rehabilitation, having not been in trouble since 2000; She credibly testified that omissions in her security clearance application were not intentional and were due to lack of awareness; The applicant has taken proactive steps to manage her finances and resolve her debts.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a significant period of rehabilitation, having not been in trouble since 2000.
- She credibly testified that omissions in her security clearance application were not intentional and were due to lack of awareness.
- The applicant has taken proactive steps to manage her finances and resolve her debts.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
- E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“An applicant is not required to be debt-free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way to meet her financial obligations.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 12, 2005
- Answer filedDec 2, 2005
- Hearing heldFeb 9, 2006
- Decision dateApr 10, 2006
Cite For
- Successful Mitigation of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Financial Rehabilitation Efforts Under Guideline F
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Omissions in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E