Summary
The applicant, a 36-year-old sandblaster employed by a Department of Defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of significant unpaid debts totaling approximately $20,000 and failure to disclose a repossession on his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of candor undermined his trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant failed to disclose a manufactured house repossession in his response to SF 86 question 35 (2.a). Applicant failed to disclose debts over 90 days delinquent and debts over 180 days delinquent during the last seven years (2.b). Applicant's conduct raises concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness (2.c). an account owing $241 which was placed in collection around April 2004 (1.a). two accounts, owing $832 and $209, which were placed in collection with the same agency around June 2004 (1.b). two accounts, owing $832 and $209, which were placed in collection with the same agency around June 2004 (1.c). four accounts, owing $35 each, which had been in collection since 2002 (1.d). four accounts, owing $35 each, which had been in collection since 2002 (1.e). four accounts, owing $35 each, which had been in collection since 2002 (1.f). four accounts, owing $35 each, which had been in collection since 2002 (1.g). an account, owing $1,061, which was charged off in about October 1999 (1.h). a July 2000 voluntary repossession of a manufactured house, owing $11,876 (1.i). a delinquent account resulting from a car repossession in about March 1999 (1.k).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A5.1.2.2. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has a history of failing to meet financial obligations dating back to the late 1990s; As of the date he answered the SOR, he had four accounts totaling $20,000 that were delinquent for many years; Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve his debts or demonstrate financial responsibility; The judge found that the applicant's claims of honest mistake regarding omissions on his SF 86 were not credible.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has a history of failing to meet financial obligations dating back to the late 1990s.
- As of the date he answered the SOR, he had four accounts totaling $20,000 that were delinquent for many years.
- Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve his debts or demonstrate financial responsibility.
- The judge found that the applicant's claims of honest mistake regarding omissions on his SF 86 were not credible.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
Key Rule Quoted
“The government has a compelling interest to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her own.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 16, 2006
- Answer filedUndated
- Hearing held—
- Decision dateNov 27, 2006
Cite For
- Denial Based on Significant Unpaid Debts Under Guideline F
- Failure to Disclose Financial Issues on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Lack of Credible Evidence of Financial Responsibility and Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts