CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00802 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00802granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00802

grantedJun 30, 2023· Hon. Charles C. Hale· hearing

Summary

This DOHA security clearance decision involved an applicant who represented herself and faced concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant's financial difficulties stemmed from serious health problems and a period of unemployment.

The Administrative Judge determined that these financial issues were mitigated by several factors. Specifically, the applicant's problems were directly caused by the health events and subsequent unemployment, rather than irresponsibility. She actively demonstrated efforts to manage her debts, including working with creditors to address outstanding obligations.

Crucially, there was no evidence suggesting negligence or an unwillingness on the applicant's part to pay her debts. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that these mitigating circumstances warranted a favorable outcome, concluding that granting the applicant eligibility for access to classified information was consistent with the national interest. The security clearance was therefore GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's financial problems were caused by serious health events and unemployment.
She demonstrated efforts to manage her debts and worked with creditors.
There was no evidence of negligence or unwillingness to pay her debts.

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(d)appliedThe Individual 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 her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2022
Answer filedJul 19, 2022
Hearing heldMay 9, 2023
Decision dateJun 30, 2023

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Health Problems
Consideration of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Good-faith Efforts to Manage Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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 serious health issues and unemployment, which hindered her ability to pay debts. The judge found that the applicant had taken steps to manage her financial situation, including filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and concluded that the financial concerns were mitigated, resulting in a decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—

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. 22-00802 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Daniel P. O’Reilley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/30/2023 Decision HALE, Charles C., Administrative Judge: On July 11, 2022, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The DoD 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) implemented by the DoD on June 8, 2017. Applicant responded to the SOR on July 19, 2022, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 3, 2023. The hearing was held as scheduled on May 9, 2023. At the close of the hearing, in response to Department Counsel’s closing argument, I queried if there would be an objection to a summary disposition. Department Counsel did not object. On June 16, 2023, I formally proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Neither party objected. Applicant's financial problems were caused by series of serious health events starting in 2018, cumulating in her major emergency surgery in October 2022, which

________________________ kept her from work until February 2023 with limited disability compensation, as well as a car accident and unemployment. She managed to maintain several debts that were not alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and worked with her creditors. There is no evidence of negligence on her part, or any evidence of unwillingness to pay. She simply did not have the finances to do so at this point. Prior to her emergency surgery she had retained a lawyer to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy. She has paid what she can when employed and established a plan to resolve her financial problems. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(d). The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about her 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 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 classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge