A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-02721.h1
GrantedDecided Jun 20, 2017 · Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial difficulties stemming from a failed business and pending lawsuits. The judge found that the applicant had taken responsibility for his debts and was actively resolving them, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.
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) The behavior was not recent.applied
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were beyond the applicant's control.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The applicant has made a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The applicant has received financial counseling.applied
- AG ¶ 20(e) The applicant has a reasonable plan to resolve debts.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 11/17/2016
- Answer filed
- 12/20/2016
- Hearing held
- 06/06/2017
- Decision date
- 06/20/2017 Proposed 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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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.