Summary
The applicant, a 42-year-old security guard with a history of financial difficulties since 1994, was unable to pay his delinquent debts and basic living expenses. The administrative judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F, resulting in a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: In July 2000, a judgment (tax lien) for $4,800 was issued against Applicant in favor of a state taxing authority, and, as of November 29, 2005, the judgment had not been paid (1.a). In December 1999, a judgment (tax lien) for $2,100 was issued against Applicant in favor of a state taxing authority, and, as of November 29, 2005, the judgment had not been paid (1.b). In September 1999, a judgment (tax lien) for $1,800 was issued against Applicant in favor of a state taxing authority, and, as of November 29, 2005, the judgment had not been paid (1.c). Applicant owed a debt of $217 in collection status to a communications company, and, as of November 29, 2005, the debt had not been paid (1.d). Applicant owed a state department of social services approximately $5,402 in child/spouse support arrearage, and, as of December 7, 2005, the debt had not been paid (1.e). Applicant owed a creditor approximately $1,863 for an account turned over for collection, and, as of November 29, 2005, the debt had not been paid (1.f). Applicant owed a creditor approximately $462 on an account that was 120 days past due, and, as of November 29, 2005, the debt had not been paid (1.g). Applicant owed approximately $300 to a creditor on an automobile loan that was 30 days past due, and he was unable to pay the loan (1.h). Applicant owed his landlord approximately $690 for rent that was 30 days past due, and he was unable to pay the debt (1.i). Applicant owed a utility company approximately $295 on an account that was currently 60 days past due, and he was unable to pay the debt (1.j). Applicant owed another utility company approximately $49 on an account that was 30 days past due, and he was unable to pay the debt (1.k).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.6, E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.4. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has a long history of financial difficulties and delinquent debts; He admitted to being unable to pay his basic living expenses and debts; The applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate a clear plan to resolve his financial issues.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has a long history of financial difficulties and delinquent debts.
- He admitted to being unable to pay his basic living expenses and debts.
- The applicant did not seek financial counseling or demonstrate a clear plan to resolve his financial issues.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Considerations - Inability to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedFinancial Considerations - Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A6.1.3.6appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsApplicant made efforts to clarify the status of several debts and paid child/spousal support.
- E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedFinancial Difficulties Caused by Conditions Beyond ControlApplicant's financial problems were not solely due to his lower salary.
- E2.A6.1.3.4rejectedSeeking Financial CounselingApplicant did not seek financial counseling.
Key Rule Quoted
“The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, common sense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 27, 2006
- Answer filedFeb 25, 2006
- Hearing heldOct 11, 2006
- Decision dateNov 30, 2006
Cite For
- Financial Difficulties as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial Under Guideline F
- Importance of Demonstrating a Clear Plan to Resolve Financial Issues
- The Role of Good-faith Efforts in Mitigating Financial Concerns