Summary
The 42-year-old applicant, seeking an ADP I/II/III position, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to five alleged debts. She successfully disputed two debts, established payment plans for two others, and demonstrated financial responsibility over the past three years. The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial concerns, leading to a granted eligibility for the position.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: $5,176 vehicle loan deficiency due to repossession (1.a). $1,885 charged-off debt, unable to reach agreement on payment plan (1.b). $1,484 charged-off debt, payment plan initiated (1.c). $6,704 disputed debt, deleted from credit report (1.d). $1,133 disputed debt, deleted from credit report (1.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions FC DC 1, FC DC 3. The judge applied mitigating conditions FC MC 1, FC MC 2, FC MC 3, FC MC 4, FC MC 6. The decision turned on the following: Successfully disputed two debts listed in the SOR; Established payment plans for two other debts; Demonstrated financial responsibility over the last three years.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- Successfully disputed two debts listed in the SOR.
- Established payment plans for two other debts.
- Demonstrated financial responsibility over the last three years.
Conditions Referenced
- FC DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- FC DC 3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- FC MC 1rejectedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
- FC MC 2rejectedIt Was an Isolated Incident
- FC MC 3appliedConditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- FC MC 4appliedThe 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
- FC MC 6rejectedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
Key Rule Quoted
“The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 16, 2006
- Answer filedSep 15, 2006Applicant elected for a hearing.
- Hearing heldNov 29, 2006Record was held open for additional evidence.
- Decision dateJan 30, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Successful Dispute of Debts in Security Clearance Cases
- Importance of Financial Counseling in Demonstrating Responsibility