CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01769.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01769.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01769.h1

grantedJan 18, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant with a long-standing clearance, held since 1975, who faced financial difficulties under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited unpaid medical debts that arose during a period of unemployment.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. After securing full-time employment, he regained control of his finances and resolved all outstanding debts. The decision noted his excellent reputation for trustworthiness, which he had maintained throughout his extensive history as a clearance holder.

Based on these mitigating factors—specifically, the resolution of all debts, the re-establishment of financial stability, and a consistent record of trustworthiness—the applicant was granted his security clearance. The mitigating conditions applied included AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d).

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant regained control of his finances after obtaining full-time employment.
He has successfully held a security clearance since 1975 and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.
Financial concerns were mitigated as he resolved all debts.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Caused by Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Basis to Expect to Be Able to Satisfy Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Track Record of Responsible Financial Behavior.

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 issuedJun 4, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant timely answered the SOR.
Hearing heldNov 16, 2016Hearing was held as scheduled.
Decision dateJan 18, 2017

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Considerations
Evidence of Rehabilitation and Resolution of Financial Issues
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: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had unresolved medical debts due to unemployment but has since regained control of his finances after obtaining full-time employment. The judge concluded that the financial considerations security concerns were mitigated, and granted the applicant eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	uncovered medical debts that Applicant was unable to pay as a result of unemployment	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(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
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01769 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/18/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On September 21, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On June 4, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 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 September 26, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On November 16, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed 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 provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

The SOR allegations consist primarily of uncovered medical debts that Applicant was unable to pay as a result of unemployment. Since obtaining full-time employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant has successfully held a security clearance since 1975 and 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 the mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(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, 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.

Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006 and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.