@takeshi74 wrote:They're all red flags and worse than having no derogs. You want 0 derogs and 100% payment history.
Well, this is true, but that isn't quite in the realm of discussion right now 
OP, the negatives of a type, in fact virtually anything counted in FICO scoring has the "first instance" as the most significant hit. After you start piling on instances of the same type of event, their subsequent impact eventually becomes less.
So the single 120 late is a significant hit to the score.
The long string of 30-day lates had the first 1 or 2 with a significant hit to your score, but the last one probably has little or no impact to your score.
So if your question is, should you try to get the 120 late off first? Yes, that's probably a good choice to focus on. The string of 30-day lates are a pile, they will survive quite a while until they fall off completely, but getting the 120 out of the way, a single item, is likely easier than all the lates.
Or, maybe it's not. If the EO comes back and says they can get rid of all the 30-day lates, jump at that one. The 120 is older, and will be due to fall off naturally sooner than the others, so worst case if the 120 remains, it goes away after it ages off.
Ideally they all can be handled to be removed. That, of course, is the best case scenario.
Good luck!
No, it's both. It has to be both.
Here's the likely sequence, though there's either the transition month or the last month which isn't quite working out, perhaps the April 2014 payment was early enough that March 2014 wasn't counted as 30-late.
