CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01233.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01233.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01233.h1

grantedJun 12, 2018· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a former U.S. Marine Corps member, faced financial issues primarily due to medical expenses for his infant son under Guideline F. He demonstrated that he has regained control of his finances and is managing his debts responsibly. The judge found that the applicant's financial concerns were mitigated, leading to a decision to grant his security clearance.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $2,500 (1.a). Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $1,200 (1.b). Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $800 (1.c). Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $600 (1.d). Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $400 (1.e). Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $300 (1.f).

The judge granted the clearance. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d). The decision turned on the following: Applicant regained control of his finances and is in payment plans for debts; Applicant's financial difficulties were primarily due to medical expenses for his son; Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness and previously held a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant regained control of his finances and is in payment plans for debts.
Applicant's financial difficulties were primarily due to medical expenses for his son.
Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness and previously held a security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received Counseling for the Financial Problems.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Initiated 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 issuedMay 23, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 10, 2018
Decision dateJun 12, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Medical Expenses as a Mitigating Factor
Importance of Good Character and Prior Security Clearance History in Adjudication

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 difficulties primarily due to uncovered medical bills and travel costs for his infant son. However, the applicant has since regained control of his finances, paid or established payment plans for his debts, and demonstrated sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to a decision in his favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $2,500. $2,500	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $1,200. $1,200	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.c	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $800. $800	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $600. $600	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.e	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $400. $400	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	Applicant has a credit card debt in the amount of $300. $300	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor

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. 17-01233 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/12/2018 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge:

On May 6, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On May 23, 2017, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) 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 March 20, 2018, the case was assigned to me. On May 10, 2018, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I emailed the parties indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and then provided timely written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant’s SOR listed seven allegations consisting primarily of consumer and credit card debt under Guideline F. Department Counsel withdrew one of the SOR allegations at the hearing leaving six allegations. Applicant’s financial difficulties stem from uncovered medical bills and travel costs associated with securing medical treatment for his infant son. Applicant has since regained control of his finances and has paid or is in an established payment plan for each of the remaining six debts.

Applicant successfully held a security clearance during his eight years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has an excellent 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 (d).

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, Applicant 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 Tuider Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated 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), which became effective on June 8, 2017.