A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-00943.h1
GrantedDecided Jan 25, 2018 · Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, sought a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The applicant admitted to three delinquent debts, which were attributed to periods of unemployment and underemployment, but demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay creditors. The judge granted the clearance, finding it consistent with the national interest.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay creditors.
- The applicant's financial difficulties were due to conditions beyond her control, including unemployment.
- The applicant paid one debt in full and was making payments on the other two debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19(a) Inability to satisfy debtsraised
- AG ¶ 19(c) A history of not meeting financial obligationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(b) Conditions beyond the applicant's controlapplied
- AG ¶ 20(d) Good-faith effort to repay creditorsapplied
Key rule quoted
“The applicant has met her burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 04/27/2017
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 01/17/2018
- Decision date
- 01/25/2018
Cite for
- Mitigating Conditions for Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
- Good-faith Efforts to Repay Debts
- Impact of Unemployment on Financial Obligations
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.
- Payment Plan
- yes
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 3 per allegation rows needs a free account.
3 rows 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: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 17-00943 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
For Government: Julie Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
01/25/2018 ______________
Decision
______________
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on August 8, 2016. On April 27, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent her 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 December 12, 2017, and I conducted the hearing as scheduled on January 17, 2018. On the same day, I notified Department Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
The SOR alleged three delinquent debts, which Applicant admitted, thereby establishing the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability to satisfy debts) and 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant’s debts were caused by periods of unemployment and underemployment. She presented documentary evidence that she paid one debt in full and was making payments pursuant to payment agreements for the other two debts, thereby establishing the mitigating conditions in AG ¶¶ 20(b) (conditions beyond her control) and 20(d) (good-faith effort to repay creditors).
I conclude that Applicant has met her burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her 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 for all adjudicative decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. The SEAD 4 revision of the adjudicative guidelines did not affect my recommended decision in this case.