In begin 2013, I modified my mortgage because the contractor was unable to pay, so I called the bank and went through the processes. They approved my modification, but only dropped the 2nd mortgage. I had no equity in the property and had purchased the home in 2006. In 2015, I was left with just one mortgage to pay, with a slightly lower payment but the same high interest rate. I eventually found a better paying job in 2014. However, in begin of 2015, the second mortgage amount appeared on my credit report, placed there by the bank. I hired a lawyer, who informed me that the debt could be sold to a collector, but would drop off in 7 years. In 2021, the debt did indeed drop off, but during the adjudication process, my clearance was revoked by a DOHQ judge who said I didn’t do enough to mitigate my debt. I explained to the judge that I had been honest with the bank, providing all the necessary documentation and that my intention was always to modify the mortgage when I was able to. Despite my honesty and efforts, the bank classified me as a high risk and kept the high interest rate. The judge did not take my side, and my clearance was revoked. I now have to wait a year to get it back and work in a job that is not as challenging. This experience highlights the inequity in the US where investors are favored over homeowners. In 2014 DOJ did Sue the bank for the investors not for any of the homeowners. Tell me what you think
This word. LMAO
There is no inequity in this. A business has a right to make profits.
You had 2 mortgages it appears. You entered into contracts to pay said mortgages. You didn’t hold up your end. This is on you. You can’t blame others.
I don’t mean to sound harsh but you need to hear this should you choose to apply for a job that will require a clearance in the future. There is no inequity in the security clearance process. In your case it is more a matter of accepting responsibility. Number one, your lawyer gave you bad advice or at best advice that works okay for people who do not have security clearances. Yes, “charged off delinquent” debt typically falls off in 7-years but that doesn’t mean the company can’t put it back on your credit report in an effort to collect. Will they? Not always. In either case, the adjudicator will ALWAYS look at that as money you owed and did not pay. During the appeal, you will ALWAYS be denied if all you are going in with is “honesty” and your “word”. You need supporting documentation and facts to support what you are saying.
Financial Disqualifying Conditions:
In ability to satisfy debts
Unwillingness to satisfy debts
History of not meeting financial obligations
If it can mitigated, experience has shown you will be favorably adjudicated. But realize, if it IS or WAS on your credit report, it’s yours until it is paid. So how do you mitigate something that fell off your credit report? “The individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve the debt”
I have seen in the past individuals have “charged off” accounts. The good news is, the company wrote the debt off (hence the term charged off) and never expect to get paid, this is why it can fall off the credit report. As such, they often will negotiate a settlement with you thinking it is better to get something rather than nothing. If you had brought to your appeal a letter from the bank that said you agreed to pay $XX,XXX.oo at $XXX.00 per month for XX months AND brought proof of making those monthly payments, adjudicators will normally look at that as a “good-faith effort” and favorably adjudicate.
I highly recommend you get this account in good standing before re-applying as the result will be the same if you don’t. Realize, this isn’t about the government being unfair to YOU, this is about the protection of National Security. History is littered with people who had clearances for many years and were able to be coerced into sharing classified information. Nobody who is looking at your clearance knows you nor knows what you will do in the future so ultimately, it’s about SHOWING that you are financially responsible and pay your debts.
So you entered into a contract, did not hold up your end of the contract, have outstanding debts, and feel unfairly adjudicated due to your financial history clearly shows financial responsibility? Am I understanding your argument?
My argument is how much interest or profit is enough? 10 20 30 percentage? Where.you say enough is enough?
The DoD does not decide your interests rates or whether they are fair, they determine your liabilities and responsibility to satisfy legal obligations. Whether fair or not, if the obligation is legal then it is your responsibility to be an adult and handle your business. Denying obligation on a legal responsibility and passing responsibility due to an unfair world is not going to get you far with a judge. You made the deal. You took the mortgage. It was not forced on you. This is your responsibility. The more you pass blame and seek sympathy for the unjust world we live in, the less likely you are ever going to be seen as financially responsible.
Something about this doesn’t make sense. You:
(1) Had a first mortgage
(2) Had a second mortgage
(3) Got the loans modified and the second mortgage removed
(4) A year later, the second mortgage reappears on your credit so you
(5) Contact a lawyer who tells you to wait 7 years and it will fall off?
That’s not how its supposed to work. Did you call the bank yourself? What did they say about why your “removed” second mortgage reappeared? Did you make a complaint with the state or federal bank regulator? What did they say? Did you file a lawsuit?
All of those would be better options than complaining on a web forum about “inequity”
Yes I made the complaint to both the state and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) - they redirected that I complain to the bank, at the time I was seeking a lawyer and each one I called said, not able to help due to conflicts of interest. Which meant the bank had every major law firm working for them. Yes , I was trying to find the best ones. and No the free ones were not able to help because I was making too much money.
As for the word “Inequity” is a term that refers to a lack of fairness or justice in a particular situation. It can be used to describe situations where one party is treated unfairly or unjustly, or where there is a lack of balance or equity in the distribution of resources, benefits, or opportunities.
In conclusion, I’ve lost my security clearance and find myself in my senior years with 12 recent years of experience in government. I worry that the private sector may not accommodate my skill set, as it often seeks candidates with 20-plus years of experience. Also not even close the pay I was making.
It doesn’t matter. You failed to uphold your responsibility regarding the loan. This is 100% on you.
What was unfair? You did this to yourself. No one told you yo take out numerous mortgages.
The Interest rate was the unfair. I came into this home with a MAJOR bank my Credit Score was 700+ and they decided to flank me a 9 percent loan and then I had to take another 2 loan. If houses weren’t limited in numbers and not over price at the time! Then I would agree with you Thor BUT homeless while I was living with a family member with my new wife and trying to find a place call home in the country you thought won’t take advantage of you. Yeah I pay’ed for my bill s but then to stick me with a 9 percent because someone at the bank said, hey this individual will pay no matter what amount we tell him to pay
I agree completely,! but I don’t like it when someone the same age, same height and different color is provided a different rule set complete,
Did you or anyone else, like your lawyers, ask the bank “Why did the second mortgage that you agreed to remove, reappear?” What was the answer to that question?
I am getting more and more confused. So you took a high interest rate mortgage so you and your wife did not have to live with family? That sounds like a personal choice you made. That is not homelessness. A lot of people have to or choose to live with family for whatever reason: health, cost of living, support, childcare, etc. So your desire for more and inability to be content caused financial strain that in turn had a negative affect on your security clearance and it is the bank and adjudicator’s fault that you can’t work in your desired position because they just can’t understand the strain of high interest rate loans.
That was a personal choice. No one forced you to except that rate.
Did you shop around for a better rate?
You weren’t close to homeless, you didn’t like your situation and made poor choices to fix it. This is all you.
I thought I had brothers and sisters here to help. But I guess it’s BS!.. thanks for your support and understanding!
I am an investigator. I have no brothers or sisters. A key part of my job is looking at facts of a case without bias to the subject or to the government. In this scenario it seems as if you made a bad business deal, that sucks, but it’s life. It’s not personal, it’s business. I can’t be personal as an investigator.
You made choices that led to this situation. You want someone to pat you on the back and tell you it will be ok.
Sorry, this is the big boy world. You messed up, own your mistakes and move on.