A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 18-01779
GrantedDecided Apr 12, 2019 · Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 11 delinquent debts. He mitigated these concerns by completing financial counseling, paying some debts, and negotiating agreements. The judge found that the applicant met the burden of persuasion for continued eligibility for security clearance, resulting in a favorable decision.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Completed a financial counseling course before responding to the SOR.
- Paid three debts and negotiated payment agreements for two others.
- Verified all questionable debts and made payments under an agreement for the remaining debt.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(b) The individual has received counseling for the financial problem.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The individual has made a good-faith effort to resolve debts.applied
Key rule quoted
“The individual has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to continue his eligibility for access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2018-09-28
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2019-03-27
- Decision date
- 2019-04-12
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Successful Demonstration of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Impact of Financial Counseling on Security Clearance Eligibility
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
- Payment Plan
- yes
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 8 per allegation rows needs a free account.
8 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 18-01779 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Moira Modzelewski, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________ Decision ______________ FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Applicant submitted a security clearance application on February 23, 2107. On September 28, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016). The case was assigned to me on February 26, 2019, and I conducted the hearing as scheduled on March 27, 2019. Department Counsel submitted Government’s Exhibits 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through K, which were admitted without objection. On April 1, 2019, 04/12/2019
I notified Department Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
The SOR alleged 11 delinquent debts that are reflected in Applicant’s credit reports. The debts were incurred due to his losses of a series of second jobs and a marital breakup that left him with most of the marital debts and custody of his son, for whom he receives no child support. When he answered the SOR, he had completed a financial counseling course. He submitted evidence that three of the debts were paid before the SOR was issued, and he had negotiated payment agreements for two debts. He had received a settlement agreement for one debt which he intended to accept. He did not recognize five debts and he asked the creditors to verify them.
At the hearing, he had verified all the questionable debts. (Tr. 32) He submitted documentary evidence that he had paid all the debts except one, for which he was making payments under a payment agreement. (Tr. 34-41; AX A through J.) I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F. The mitigating conditions in AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) are established.
Applicant has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to continue his eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted.
LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge