A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 16-03901.h1
GrantedDecided Jul 17, 2017 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to a single delinquent debt of $20,587. The applicant demonstrated that the principal borrower had taken responsibility for the debt and was establishing a payment plan, leading to a conclusion that the financial concerns were mitigated. The judge found that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt, resulting in a granted security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The principal borrower took responsibility for the delinquent debt.
- A payment plan was being established by the principal borrower.
- The applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- 20(d) The individual has made good faith efforts to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.applied
- 20(e) The individual is in a repayment plan or has otherwise resolved the debt.applied
Key rule quoted
“I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(d) and 20(e).”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- January 30, 2017
- Answer filed
- February 21, 2017
- Hearing held
- June 20, 2017
- Decision date
- July 17, 2017 Proposed summary disposition in Applicant’s favor on June 29, 2017.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Consideration of Whole-person Concept 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.
- Delinquent Usd
- 20587
- Payment Plan
- yes
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row 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. 16-03901 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
07/17/2017 ______________
Decision
______________
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:
On January 30, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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).1
Applicant responded to the SOR on February 21, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 20, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on June 20, 2017. On June 29, 2017, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
The SOR alleged a single debt in the amount of $20,587. Applicant presented documentation showing that the principal borrower had taken responsibility for the delinquent debt for which Applicant had cosigned. The principal borrower was establishing a payment plan with the creditor. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(d) and 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. 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.
________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge
Footnotes
1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this case under the previous AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using either set of AG.