ISCR Case 16-03993.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03993.h1

grantedJun 29, 2018· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old information technology engineer was granted eligibility for access to classified information despite initial security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and G (Alcohol Consumption).

The applicant faced allegations of failing to disclose five judgments on a January 8, 2016, security clearance application. These included two financial judgments from 2010 ($6,763) and 2012 ($5,831), which the applicant denied knowledge of, citing deployment to Afghanistan. A 2012 medical judgment for $1,993 was paid, with satisfaction filed in April 2018. A 2013 medical judgment for $14,764 was initially denied but later accepted. Additionally, a past-due child support debt of $2,660 was paid, as reflected in a January 2018 credit report, and an unpaid fine of $1,000 plus $211 in court costs was also paid.

Regarding alcohol consumption, the applicant had two convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in September 2011 and April 2015. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by resolving several debts, completing alcohol counseling, and demonstrating a commitment to responsible alcohol consumption. The judge found that the applicant's lack of awareness of certain judgments due to deployment also mitigated personal conduct concerns, leading to the favorable outcome.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant provided evidence of resolving multiple delinquent debts, demonstrating financial responsibility.
Successfully completed alcohol counseling and committed to responsible alcohol consumption.
Refuted allegations of personal conduct by showing lack of awareness of certain judgments due to deployment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts
AG ¶ 23(a)appliedTime Passed or Infrequent Behavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use Pattern and Actions Taken to Overcome It
AG ¶ 23(d)appliedSuccessful Completion of Treatment Program and Established Pattern of Modified Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2017
Answer filedFeb 8, 2017
Hearing heldFeb 6, 2018
Decision dateJun 29, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Successful Completion of Alcohol Counseling Under Guideline G
Refutation of Personal Conduct Allegations Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant failed to disclose his judgments in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.e on his January 8, 2016 SCA.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant failed to disclose his judgments in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.e on his January 8, 2016 SCA.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a judgment owed to a financial creditor filed in 2010 for $6,763. Applicant denied any knowledge of this judgment, stating he was deployed to Afghanistan when the debt was incurred. $6,763	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a judgment owed to a financial creditor filed in 2012 for $5,831. Applicant denied any knowledge of this judgment, stating he was deployed to Afghanistan when the debt was incurred. $5,831	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a medical judgment filed in 2012 for $1,993. Applicant paid the debt, and on April 12, 2018, the creditor filed a satisfaction with the court. $1,993	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a medical judgment filed in 2013 for $14,764. Applicant initially denied that he ever had an account with the medical creditor but later accepted responsibility for the judgment. $14,764	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.e	SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a past-due debt for $2,660 for delinquent child support. Applicant’s January 2018 credit report reflects his child support debt is paid. $2,660	For Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f alleges an unpaid fine for $1,000 and court costs of $211. Applicant paid the fine and court costs. $1,211	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a judgment owed to a financial creditor filed in 2010 for $6,763. Applicant denied any knowledge of this judgment, stating he was deployed to Afghanistan when the debt was incurred.

$6,763

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.b

SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a judgment owed to a financial creditor filed in 2012 for $5,831. Applicant denied any knowledge of this judgment, stating he was deployed to Afghanistan when the debt was incurred.

$5,831

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.c

SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a medical judgment filed in 2012 for $1,993. Applicant paid the debt, and on April 12, 2018, the creditor filed a satisfaction with the court.

$1,993

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

—

1.d

SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a medical judgment filed in 2013 for $14,764. Applicant initially denied that he ever had an account with the medical creditor but later accepted responsibility for the judgment.

$14,764

For Applicant

Medical Debt

Denied with Explanation

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.e

SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a past-due debt for $2,660 for delinquent child support. Applicant’s January 2018 credit report reflects his child support debt is paid.

$2,660

For Applicant

Child Support Debt

Admitted

—

1.f

SOR ¶ 1.f alleges an unpaid fine for $1,000 and court costs of $211. Applicant paid the fine and court costs.

$1,211

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant had a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in September 2011.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant had a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in April 2015.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant had a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in September 2011.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

2.b

The applicant had a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in April 2015.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES