CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 18-02156 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 18-02156granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 18-02156

grantedJun 26, 2019· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This DOHA security clearance case, decided under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), resulted in a GRANTED outcome for the applicant, a former U.S. Navy member. The allegations centered on financial difficulties, including student loans, consumer debt, and credit card debt, which arose primarily from a costly divorce in 2013.

The Administrative Judge applied mitigating conditions, finding that the applicant had successfully established payment plans for all outstanding debts. A key factor in the decision was the determination that the divorce constituted extenuating circumstances for the financial issues.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a long history of holding a security clearance and maintained an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. These factors collectively led the judge to conclude that the applicant had regained control of his finances and demonstrated the necessary reliability, ultimately granting eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully established a payment plan for all debts listed in the SOR.
The applicant's financial issues were primarily due to a divorce, which the judge found to be extenuating circumstances.
The applicant had a long history of holding a security clearance and an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received Counseling or Treatment for the Problem.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 3, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 30, 2019
Decision dateJun 26, 2019

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Consideration of Extenuating Circumstances in Financial Cases
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The applicant faced financial difficulties primarily due to a costly divorce in 2013, which resulted in student loans, consumer debt, and credit card debt. However, the judge found that the applicant had since regained control of his finances and established payment plans for the debts, leading to a decision to grant eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has financial difficulties stemming from a costly divorce in 2013, including student loans, consumer debt, and credit card debt.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: )

)

ISCR Case No. 18-02156

) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Catie Young, Esq.

June 26, 2019

______________

Decision ______________

TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge:

On January 5, 2017, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On September 3, 2018, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing.

On January 8, 2019, the case was assigned to me. On May 30, 2019, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I emailed the parties indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and then provided timely written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant’s SOR listed 12 allegations consisting primarily of student loans, consumer debt, and credit card debt under Guideline F. Applicant’s financial difficulties stem from a costly divorce in 2013. In that divorce, he lost his home, was required to pay spousal and child support, and incurred all of the marital debt, which forms the majority of the SOR allegations. Applicant has since regained control of his finances and has paid or is in an established payment plan for all of the SOR debts.

Applicant successfully held a security clearance during his 20 years in the U.S. Navy. He has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline F. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the financial considerations security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under applicable mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 20(a) through (d).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Robert Tuider Administrative Judge

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 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), which became effective on June 8, 2017.