CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-01319.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-01319.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-01319.h1

grantedJun 14, 2018· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant, a former Marine and defense contractor, whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the years 2013 through 2016. These allegations raised disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.2.

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to major depressive disorder following the death of his spouse. However, he demonstrated significant mitigating efforts, including seeking professional help, filing all outstanding tax returns, and subsequently managing his finances responsibly. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.3, F.4, F.5, and F.6, noting the applicant's debilitating depression as a contributing factor to his past issues.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant had regained control of his finances and demonstrated current reliability and trustworthiness. His history of successfully holding a security clearance and excellent reputation further supported this finding. Consequently, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided evidence of debilitating depression that contributed to his financial issues.
He sought professional help and has since regained control of his finances.
The applicant has a history of successfully holding a security clearance and an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Accounts

Mitigating

F.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved
F.4appliedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the Financial Problems
F.5appliedThe Individual Has a Good Reputation and Has Demonstrated Financial Responsibility
F.6appliedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The financial considerations security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 20(a) through (d) and (g).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 27, 2017
Answer filed—Applicant responded timely.
Hearing heldMay 10, 2018
Decision dateJun 14, 2018

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Considerations
Impact of Mental Health on Financial Responsibility
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

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 failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 through 2016, which raised financial concerns under Guideline F. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that he had regained control of his finances and filed his back tax returns, leading to a decision in his favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 through 2016	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	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	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence
1.b	failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 through 2016	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	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	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence

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. 17-01319 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

06/14/2018 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge:

On July 14, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On June 27, 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 provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant’s SOR listed two allegations under Guideline F for failing to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 through 2016. Applicant submitted evidence that he suffered from debilitating depression and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder after the death of his spouse after 23 years of marriage. Applicant’s condition adversely affected other aspects of his life to include his professional well-being and family. Applicant sought professional help and has since regained control of his personal and professional life, filed his back tax returns, and is managing his finances in a responsible manner.

Applicant successfully held a security clearance as a career Marine and as a defense contractor. 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) and (g).

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.