CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02721.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02721.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02721.h1

grantedJun 20, 2017· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial difficulties arose from a failed joint business venture, which was abandoned due to unresolved mold issues at the rented premises. This situation led to numerous incurred debts and pending lawsuits seeking compensation for financial losses and medical expenses.

Despite advice to defer payments until the lawsuits were resolved, the applicant took responsibility for the delinquent debts and systematically began resolving them. Furthermore, the applicant participated in financial counseling, demonstrating proactive efforts to manage and address his financial situation.

The judge determined that the applicant had shown responsibility for his debts and was actively working towards their resolution. The pending lawsuits were also noted as a potential source of compensation for the applicant's losses. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated responsibility for his delinquent debts and was systematically resolving them.
Pending lawsuits were expected to compensate the applicant for financial losses and medical expenses.
The applicant participated in financial counseling, showing proactive steps to address his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Beyond the Applicant's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Received Financial Counseling.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 17, 2016
Answer filedDec 20, 2016
Hearing heldJun 6, 2017
Decision dateJun 20, 2017Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant on 06/13/2017.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of External Circumstances on Financial Responsibility Assessments

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 numerous debts due to financial difficulties stemming from a failed business venture and medical issues affecting his wife. The applicant demonstrated responsibility by systematically resolving these debts and participating in financial counseling, leading to a decision in his favor under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred numerous debts when his successful joint business with his wife was abandoned because the premises they rented had mold and the landlord refused to take remedial action to eradicate it.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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	—
1.b	Lawsuits are pending to compensate Applicant for his financial losses and medical expenses.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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	—
1.c	Although he was advised not to pay creditors until the lawsuits are adjudicated or settled, Applicant has taken responsibility for the delinquent debts and has been systematically resolving them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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	—
1.d	Applicant participated in financial counseling.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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	—

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. 16-02721 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: David Hayes Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/20/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge:

On November 17, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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 (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. On June 8, 2017, new AGs were implemented and are effective for decisions issued after that date.1

Applicant responded to the SOR on December 20, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 1, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on June 6, 2017. On June 13, 2017, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Neither party objected. Applicant incurred numerous debts when his successful joint business with his wife was abandoned because the premises they rented had mold and the landlord refused to take remedial action to eradicate it. Applicant’s wife suffered irreversible lung damage. Lawsuits are pending to compensate Applicant for his financial losses and medical expenses. Although he was advised not to pay creditors until the lawsuits are adjudicated or settled, Applicant has taken responsibility for the delinquent debts and has been systematically resolving them. Applicant participated in financial counseling.

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 security concerns under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d) and 20(e).

The concerns over Applicant’s financial problems no longer 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. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Carol G. Ricciardello Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case were considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines.