A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-03628.h1
GrantedDecided Jul 19, 2017 · Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The judge found that the applicant established mitigating conditions related to financial issues, leading to a favorable decision for clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated that financial issues were resolved and under control.
- The applicant provided evidence of a stable financial situation and responsible management of debts.
- The judge found that granting clearance was consistent with the national interest.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(b) The behavior was not recent and was mitigated by the applicant's actions.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The applicant has shown a good faith effort to resolve debts.applied
- AG ¶ 20(e) The applicant has established a track record of financial responsibility.applied
Key rule quoted
“I am satisfied that Applicant has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- January 27, 2017
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- June 9, 2017
- Decision date
- July 19, 2017 Judge notified Department Counsel of intent to issue summary disposition.
Cite for
- Establishment of Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F
- Criteria for Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases
- Burden of Persuasion 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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
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: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 16-03628 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
For Government: Robert B. Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se.
07/19/2017 ______________
Decision
______________
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on February 23, 2015. On January 27, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent him a statement of reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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, 2006.1 Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on May 11, 2017, and I conducted the hearing as scheduled on June 9, 2017. On July 12, 2017, I notified Department Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor, and he did not object. After reviewing all the evidence, I conclude that the mitigating conditions in AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(d), and 20(e) are established. I am satisfied that Applicant has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted.
LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge
Footnotes
1 Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), was issued on December 10, 2016, revising the 2006 adjudicative guidelines. The SEAD 4 guidelines apply to all adjudicative decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. My decision is based on the guidelines in SEAD 4, referred to in this decision as “AG.” The changes resulting from issuance of SEAD 4 did not affect my decision in this case.