A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-01657.h1
GrantedDecided May 16, 2018 · Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial issues stemming from unemployment, divorce, and lack of child support. He successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating significant actions taken to resolve his debts and establishing a credible plan for future financial stability, leading to a favorable decision.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant resolved most debts alleged in the SOR.
- He established a credible plan to address his financial issues.
- The judge found that the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recent.applied
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were beyond the applicant's control.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The applicant has taken significant steps to reduce or eliminate financial problems.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- July 11, 2017
- Answer filed
- July 26, 2017
- Hearing held
- January 31, 2018
- Decision date
- May 14, 2018 Proposed summary disposition in favor of applicant.
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- Significant Steps Taken to Resolve Financial Problems
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 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01657 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
05/16/2018 ______________
Decision
______________
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:
On July 11, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations.1 Applicant responded to the SOR on July 26, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 9, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 31, 2018. On May 14, 2018, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
Applicant's financial problems were caused by periods of unemployment, his divorce, his ex-wife’s failure to pay her share of the marital debt, and his custody of his two children without the benefit of child support from his ex-wife. He paid several debts before the SOR was issued. He paid, settled, or otherwise resolved most of the debts alleged in the SOR. He established a plan to resolve his financial problems, and he took significant action to implement that plan. He credibly testified that he will resolve any remaining delinquent debts. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(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. 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.
________________________ Edward W. Loughran 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, which became effective on June 8, 2017.