A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-01681
GrantedDecided Feb 25, 2022 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought security clearance under Guideline F due to a single allegation of delinquent debt from a repossessed car, which arose from his ex-wife's failure to make payments as per their divorce settlement. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues did not impact his reliability or trustworthiness, ultimately granting him clearance based on the whole-person concept and favorable evidence.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated that the delinquent debt was primarily due to his ex-wife's failure to fulfill her obligations under their divorce settlement.
- The applicant made payments toward the residual debt after the car was sold and was prepared to report the written-off debt as income.
- The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues did not create doubts about his reliability or trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's controlapplied
- F.3 The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problemnoted
- F.4 The person has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsapplied
Key rule quoted
“The whole-person concept requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's character, conduct, and circumstances.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-01-03
- Answer filed
- 2020-02-10
- Hearing held
- 2022-02-16 initially postponed due to applicant's illness
- Decision date
- 2022-02-25
Cite for
- Application of the Whole-person Concept in Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Mitigating Factors Related to Financial Issues and Personal Circumstances
- Consideration of Debts Arising From Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control
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.
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row 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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 19-01681 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 02/25/2022 Decision COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: On January 3, 2020, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken 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 implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017 (AG). Applicant responded to the SOR on February 10, 2020, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on October 21, 2021. The hearing was initially postponed and rescheduled because of Applicant’s illness. It was held on February 16, 2022. On the same day, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object. This case involves a single allegation of a delinquent debt (repossessed car) under Guideline F. The debt resulted from Applicant's ex-wife not living up to her divorce settlement obligation to make the car payments while she maintained possession of the car. Applicant was the primary obligor on the debt when his ex-wife
________________________ failed to make four months of car payments. Thus, he was responsible for the debt when the car was repossessed. Applicant made payments toward the residual debt after the car was sold at auction. However, since then the creditor "wrote off" the debt and is sending Applicant an IRS 1099-C, cancellation of debt notice. Applicant understands he will have to claim the written-off debt amount as income and he is prepared to do so. All his other finances are in order. The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubts 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. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. Clearance is granted. Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge