CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03679.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03679.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03679.h1

grantedApr 12, 2017· Hon. Jennifer I. Goldstein· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant facing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed three outstanding debts totaling $13,715 owed to a single creditor. Additionally, under Guideline J, the applicant was charged in August 2014 with "improper display of license." A warrant was issued for the applicant's arrest after a failure to appear in court, which the applicant attributed to moving out of state and believing the ticket was paid.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. All three debts were resolved, with documentation provided to show payment. The criminal charge for improper display of license was also addressed; the applicant contacted the court, paid the outstanding fine, and provided documentation confirming its resolution and the clearing of the warrant.

The judge determined that the applicant's demonstrated reliability and good judgment in resolving all outstanding issues outweighed the past financial and criminal conduct concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts with documentation showing payment.
The criminal charge was addressed, and the warrant was cleared after payment of the fine.
The judge found that the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness outweighed past issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
FraisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

JappliedCriminal ConductApplicant resolved the criminal charge by paying the outstanding fine.
FappliedFinancial ConsiderationsAll debts were paid, demonstrating financial responsibility.
FappliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant showed evidence of good judgment in resolving financial issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems and criminal conduct do not create doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 30, 2016
Answer filedJan 23, 2017
Hearing heldApr 3, 2017
Decision dateApr 12, 2017

Cite For

Resolution of Criminal Conduct Under AG ¶ 32
Mitigation of Financial Issues Under AG ¶ 20
Summary Disposition in Favor of the Applicant When Evidence Is Undisputed.

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 resolved financial concerns by paying off three debts totaling $13,715. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues did not raise doubts about his reliability or trustworthiness, ultimately granting him a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	indebted on three debts held by the same creditor, in the total amount of $13,715. $13,715	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The applicant was charged with improper display of a license in August 2014, which led to a warrant for his arrest due to failure to appear in court. He resolved the outstanding fine after learning of the warrant. The judge found that the criminal conduct security concerns were mitigated, leading to a granted security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Under Guideline J, Applicant was charged with “improper display of license” in August 2014. He failed to appear in court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He testified he had moved out of state and thought the ticket had been paid prior to the move. Once he learned of the outstanding warrant, he contacted the court and paid the outstanding fine. He presented documentation that showed the fine was resolved. (AE B.) The criminal conduct security concerns are resolved under AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d).	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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. 16-03679 ) Applicant for a Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

April 12, 2017

______________

DECISION

______________

Goldstein, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) on March 21, 2016. On December 30, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 23, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on March 6, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 3, 2017. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A and B, which were also admitted without objection.

After reviewing the record, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.1 Applicant did not object. Department Counsel provided written notice on April 4, 2017, that Department Counsel did not object. (Hearing Exhibit I.) 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 Guidelines J and F.

Under Guideline J, Applicant was charged with “improper display of license” in August 2014. He failed to appear in court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He testified he had moved out of state and thought the ticket had been paid prior to the move. Once he learned of the outstanding warrant, he contacted the court and paid the outstanding fine. He presented documentation that showed the fine was resolved. (AE B.) The criminal conduct security concerns are resolved under AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d).

Under Guideline F, Applicant was alleged to be indebted on three debts held by the same creditor, in the total amount of $13,715. He presented documentation that shows all three debts have been paid. (AE A.) I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems and criminal conduct 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 whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.

Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance. This case is decided for Applicant. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.