CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-00826.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-00826.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00826.h1

grantedJul 12, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Kilmartin· hearing

Summary

A former U.S. Navy service member was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited a payday loan with a high interest rate and penalties, along with delinquent debts owed to telecommunications companies, raising Disqualifying Condition F.3.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these issues. He demonstrated that he regained control of his finances following a period of unemployment, having since resolved all delinquent debts. He is now employed full-time, indicating stable financial management.

Furthermore, the applicant presented a history of trustworthiness, including previously holding a security clearance during his military service. These factors, aligning with Mitigating Conditions F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4, and F.5, led to the favorable decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant regained control of his finances after a period of unemployment.
He has resolved all delinquent debts and is currently employed full-time.
The applicant has a reputation for trustworthiness and previously held a security clearance during his military service.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.1appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Beyond the Person's Control
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
F.4appliedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan for Debt Repayment
F.5appliedThe Individual Has Demonstrated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 20, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 22, 2017
Decision dateJul 12, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Prior Military Service on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 primarily related to a payday loan and delinquent debts to telecommunications companies, which were attributed to a period of unemployment and poor financial decisions. However, the applicant demonstrated that he has since regained control of his finances and resolved his debts, leading to a decision in his favor under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	payday loan with exorbitant interest rate and penalties	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	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	Claimed Other
1.b	delinquent debts to telecommunications companies	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	Claimed Other

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. 17-00826 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/12/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On August 25, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On April 20, 2017, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 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. On May 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On June 22, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence, I e-mailed Department Counsel indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

The SOR allegations consist primarily of a payday loan with exorbitant interest rate and penalties, and delinquent debts to telecommunications companies that Applicant was unable to pay. He ascribes these delinquencies to a period of unemployment and some bad financial decisions he made previously. Since obtaining full-time employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a security clearance during his 15 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy. Applicant has a 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 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. Kilmartin Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AGs), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 2017, apply here. These AGs replaced the AGs that were effective September 1, 2006, when the SOR was issued in this case. The AGs were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). A copy of the new AGs was provided directly to Applicant in this case. I have considered this case under both sets of AGs and my conclusion would be the same under either AGs.