Summary
The applicant, a 35-year-old technician employed by a defense contractor, faced issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial obligations and omissions on his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's financial difficulties were largely beyond his control and that he had made significant efforts to repay debts, concluding that he did not intentionally conceal information. Consequently, the applicant was granted a security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant omitted material information from his security form in May 2004 (2.a). Applicant did not disclose the judgment described in SOR 1.b (2.b). Applicant did not disclose the debts in SOR 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.i., and 1.j (2.c). Owes approximately $3,423.00 on a state tax lien resulting from not filing a 1999 income tax return (1.a). Owes approximately $1,291.00 on a judgment from a partnership account (1.b). Owes $304.00 on a telephone debt (1.c). Owes approximately $448.00 on a cable bill representing two delinquent accounts (1.d). Owes a credit card debt that was charged off in December 2000, which was satisfied in August 2006 (1.e). Owes a debt that was charged off as a bad debt in December 2003, with a zero balance as of April 2006 (1.f). Owes approximately $479.00 on a past due account (1.g). Account opened in 1999 and charged off in February 2004; no documentation reflecting this debt has been addressed (1.h). Owes approximately $24.00 on a utility bill that was transferred for collection (1.i). Owes a credit card account that became delinquent in October 2000 and was satisfied in May 2006 (1.j).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A51.2.2. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay creditors, reducing his overall debt by more than 50%; The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, such as the sudden dissolution of a business partnership; The judge found no intent to deceive regarding omissions on the security clearance application.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay creditors, reducing his overall debt by more than 50%.
- The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, such as the sudden dissolution of a business partnership.
- The judge found no intent to deceive regarding omissions on the security clearance application.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A51.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission of Relevant and Material Facts
- 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 Creditors or Otherwise Resolved Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“"[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 18, 2006
- Answer filedJun 3, 2006
- Hearing heldDec 4, 2006
- Decision dateFeb 27, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
- Consideration of Personal Conduct in the Context of Financial Difficulties
- Evaluation of Intent in Omissions on Security Clearance Applications