CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01681 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01681granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01681

grantedFeb 25, 2022· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who sought security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), representing himself. The sole allegation involved a delinquent debt stemming from a repossessed car. This debt arose because his ex-wife failed to make payments as stipulated in their divorce settlement.

Disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, but the judge applied mitigating conditions F.2, F.3, and F.4. The applicant demonstrated that the debt was primarily due to his ex-wife's non-compliance with the divorce settlement. Furthermore, he made payments toward the remaining debt after the car's sale and was prepared to report the written-off debt as income.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues did not raise concerns about his reliability or trustworthiness. Based on the whole-person concept and favorable evidence, the security clearance was GRANTED.

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.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.3notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
F.4appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

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 issuedJan 3, 2020
Answer filedFeb 10, 2020
Hearing heldFeb 16, 2022initially postponed due to applicant's illness
Decision dateFeb 25, 2022

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.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The applicant had a delinquent debt resulting from a repossessed car, which was primarily due to his ex-wife's failure to make payments as per their divorce settlement. The judge found that the applicant took responsibility for the debt and made payments towards it after the car was sold, ultimately concluding that granting him clearance was consistent with the national interest.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debt (repossessed car) resulting from ex-wife's failure to make payments.	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	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. 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