CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02332 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02332granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02332

grantedJun 28, 2022· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

This case involved an applicant facing security clearance issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically concerning defaulted student loans and various delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons detailed $86,533 in defaulted student loans, a $13,352 debt from a repossessed car, four medical debts totaling $3,135, and other miscellaneous delinquent debts amounting to $3,763. These issues raised disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility.

However, the applicant, representing themselves, took proactive and significant steps to mitigate these concerns. They entered a rehabilitation program for the student loans and settled other outstanding debts. The judge noted that the applicant's financial situation had improved, with no new delinquent debts incurred since before the Statement of Reasons was issued.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's actions demonstrated reliability and good judgment in addressing their financial problems. Consequently, the mitigating conditions were applied, and the applicant was GRANTED eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant took significant steps to address her financial issues, including entering a rehabilitation program for student loans.
The applicant's financial situation improved, with no new delinquent debts since before the SOR was issued.
The judge found that the applicant's actions demonstrated reliability and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

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 for the Problem and Has Followed the Advice Given.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan for Debt Repayment.

Key Rule Quoted

“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 10, 2019
Answer filedOct 10, 2019
Hearing heldApr 18, 2022continued to June 6, 2022
Decision dateJun 28, 2022

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Proactive Measures Taken by Applicants to Resolve Financial Problems

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 judge found that the applicant had significant financial issues, including defaulted student loans, a repossessed car loan, medical debts, and miscellaneous delinquent debts. However, the applicant demonstrated a proactive approach to resolving these issues, which led to a decision in her favor, granting her eligibility for access to sensitive information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$86,533 in defaulted student loans; $13,352 owed on a loan for a car that was repossessed; four medical debts totaling $3,135; and miscellaneous delinquent debts totaling $3,763. $106,783	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Paid in Full Documented Payment Plan with Creditor Claimed Financial Counseling

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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 19-02332 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/28/2022 Decision LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: On September 10, 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant responded to the SOR on October 10, 2019. and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Applicant lost her job with the defense contractor sponsoring her for a security clearance, but in September 2020, she was hired by a company sponsoring her for a public trust position. The SOR was amended to reflect that it is a public trust position case.1 The case was assigned to me on February 1, 2022. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 18, 2022, and as continued to June 6, 2022. On June 22, 2022, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object. Applicant’s financial problems were primarily caused by her 2015 to 2016 separation from her husband. He left her with all of the bills and expenses involved in 1 This case is adjudicated under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines, which became effective on June 8, 2017.

________________________ maintaining the household and caring for their child. She lost her house to foreclosure, her car to repossession, and a number of debts became delinquent. The SOR alleges $86,533 in defaulted student loans; $13,352 owed on a loan for a car that was repossessed; four medical debts totaling $3,135; and miscellaneous delinquent debts totaling $3,763. Applicant started addressing her problems in 2017 (before the SOR was issued), with a settlement for the mortgage loan on her foreclosed home. She started a rehabilitation program for her student loans in October 2019. Payments have been paused due to COVID-19 relief. She was approved for an income-driven repayment plan for her student loans in June 2022. She received a small settlement from the auto lender for the repossessed car as part of a class action lawsuit into the lender’s practices. As part of the settlement, the lender agreed not to collect a deficiency balance and paid Applicant a small amount. Applicant paid in full one debt and is paying another. Applicant denied owing some of the remaining debts and admitted others. She successfully disputed the debts that she denied she owed; and the debts she admitted owing are no longer on her credit report. She attempted to contact those creditors, but she was informed they no longer held the debt, and the creditors were not collecting the debts. She has been saving money to pay the creditors if they can be located and seek repayment. Her finances are now in order, with no new delinquent debts since well before the SOR was issued. Applicant established a plan to resolve her financial problems, and she took significant action to implement that plan. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the Government established trustworthiness concerns under disqualifying conditions AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). Those trustworthiness concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e). The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect sensitive 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 she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to sensitive information. This case is decided for Applicant. Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge