CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03628.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03628.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03628.h1

grantedJul 19, 2017· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant seeking a clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing themselves, successfully demonstrated mitigating conditions related to their financial history.

The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(e). Key to the favorable outcome was the applicant's ability to show that their financial issues were resolved and currently under control. They provided evidence of a stable financial situation and responsible debt management.

Ultimately, the judge determined that granting the security clearance was consistent with the national interest, and the clearance was GRANTED.

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)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Mitigated by the Applicant's Actions.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Track Record of Financial Responsibility.

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 issuedJan 27, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 9, 2017
Decision dateJul 19, 2017Judge 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.

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 concerns under Guideline F but determined that the mitigating conditions were established. As a result, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

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: ) ) [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.