Loading case…

ISCR 16-02215.h1: Guideline F security clearance hearing, granted (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-02215.h1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02215.h1

grantedMay 1, 2017· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

This security clearance case involved an applicant whose trustworthiness was questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to her husband's failure to file federal and state tax returns for several years, resulting in a tax lien. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited these unfiled returns and the associated lien as concerns.

However, the judge found that the applicant's diligent and persistent efforts to resolve these financial issues mitigated the concerns. She actively engaged with a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), following his advice to address the outstanding tax obligations. All necessary tax returns were eventually filed, and the applicant is currently addressing the tax lien.

Based on these actions, the judge applied mitigating conditions, concluding that the applicant had demonstrated a commitment to resolving the financial issues. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant demonstrated persistent efforts to resolve her husband's tax issues with the IRS.
She worked with a CPA and followed his advice regarding tax filings.
All tax returns were eventually filed, and she is addressing the tax lien.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Addressed by the Applicant.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Resolved the Issues That Led to the Financial Problems.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve Her Financial Issues.

Key rule quoted

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

Procedural posture

SOR issuedNov 1, 2016
Answer filedNov 14, 2016
Hearing heldApr 20, 2017
Decision dateMay 1, 2017Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant on 04/24/2017.

Cite for

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Tax Liabilities
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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 financial considerations that raised trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, specifically related to tax issues. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns through diligent efforts to resolve her tax matters, leading to a decision in her favor.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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. 16-02215 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position

Appearances

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/01/2017 ______________

Decision

______________

RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge:

On November 1, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken 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 September 1, 2006.

Applicant responded to the SOR on November 14, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 24, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 20, 2017. On April 24, 2017, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Neither party objected.

Applicant married in 2005 and learned her husband had failed to file his Federal and state tax returns for several years. She attempted to rectify the matter. She worked with a certified public accountant (CPA). Based on his advice, she proposed to resolve the matter with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with an offer in compromise. For years, the IRS delayed its response, repeatedly requested additional information, transferred her case to another office, and lost information that was provided, thereby requiring her to start the process over. Applicant was persistent in her attempt to resolve the matters. Her CPA testified that he advised her to delay filing her 2014 Federal and state tax returns because they were waiting for a response from the IRS on an offer in compromise at the time. All of Applicant’s Federal and state income tax returns are filed, and she is resolving the tax lien. Applicant has been diligent and acted responsibly in attempting to resolve the tax issues.

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. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Applicant mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d).

The concerns over Applicant’s financial problems no longer 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.

________________________ Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge