CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02952.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02952.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02952.h1

grantedOct 17, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case involved an applicant, a former Navy member, seeking a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged a history of financial problems, specifically citing a loss of income after his 2013 Navy discharge and costly divorce proceedings that began in 2011 and concluded in 2015. However, it was also noted that the applicant had paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant successfully resolved all outstanding debts and financial issues. Furthermore, he maintained an excellent reputation for trustworthiness throughout his military service.

Ultimately, the judge determined that these past financial concerns did not negatively impact the applicant's current reliability and judgment. Consequently, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts and financial issues.
He maintained an excellent reputation for trustworthiness during his military service.
The judge found that financial concerns did not affect his current reliability and judgment.

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 Demonstrated a Good Faith Effort to Repay His Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve His Debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Track Record of Responsible Financial Behavior.

Key Rule Quoted

“The financial considerations security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 15, 2017
Decision dateOct 17, 2017Judge indicated case was appropriate for summary disposition.

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Mitigating Conditions Applicable to Financial Considerations
Evaluation of Trustworthiness Despite Past Financial Problems

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 a history of financial problems primarily due to a loss of income and a contentious divorce, but he resolved all debts. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial considerations did not raise doubts about his reliability and granted him eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of financial problems caused by a loss of income following his discharge from the Navy in 2013, and events beginning in 2011 that led to a contentious and costly divorce in 2015.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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. 16-02952 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

10/18/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On October 20, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On May 15, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. 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.

While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the September 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs, as required.1

On July 25, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On August 15, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. On October 17, 2017, 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.

Applicant’s SOR alleged allegations under Guideline F that were caused by a loss of income following his discharge from the Navy in 2013, and events beginning in 2011 that led to a contentious and costly divorce in 2015. He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a clearance during his ten years in the Navy 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 following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).

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 The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4 20170608.pdf.