Summary
The applicant, a 28-year-old electrical engineer employed by a defense contractor, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to seven outstanding debts totaling approximately $19,567. Despite claiming financial hardship due to his wife's job loss and seeking a better-paying job, he failed to demonstrate any concrete efforts to pay off his debts or manage his financial situation, leading to the conclusion that he had not mitigated the security concerns.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Telephone debt ($333.00) This account was charged off as a bad debt in about August 2004. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.a). Bank debt ($1,259.00) This account was charged off as a bad debt in September 2004. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.b). Bank debt ($7,969.00) This account was charged off as a bad debt in October 2004. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.c). Collection account ($1,972.00) This account was placed for collection in November 2004. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.d). Credit card debt ($1,529.00) This account was charged off as a bad debt in November 2004. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.e). Bank credit card ($5,471.12) This account was charged off as a bad debt on March 17, 2005. As of November 2005, this debt had not been satisfied (1.f). Bank credit card ($1,034.00) This account was placed for collection in December 2005. As of March 22, 2006, this debt had not been satisfied (1.g).
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.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.4, E2.A6.1.3.6. The decision turned on the following: Applicant has seven outstanding debts totaling approximately $19,567, which he has not paid; Applicant did not demonstrate any concrete efforts to resolve his financial obligations; The applicant's claim of seeking a better-paying job was viewed as a future promise rather than a current action to address his debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has seven outstanding debts totaling approximately $19,567, which he has not paid.
- Applicant did not demonstrate any concrete efforts to resolve his financial obligations.
- The applicant's claim of seeking a better-paying job was viewed as a future promise rather than a current action to address his debts.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- E2.A6.1.3.4rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem and There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
- E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJun 22, 2006
- Answer filedJul 10, 2006Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
- Hearing held—No hearing was held.
- Decision dateDec 27, 2006
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
- Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Lack of Concrete Efforts to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F