CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03182.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03182.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03182.h1

grantedJan 16, 2018· Hon. Jennifer I. Goldstein· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old U.S. citizen and defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had accumulated $32,458 in medical and consumer debt while caring for his ex-wife, leading to allegations that he incurred significant debt related to her treatment and allowed other accounts to default. Additionally, he was obligated to pay $2,600 in monthly alimony until December 2020 and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on October 27, 2017.

However, the applicant demonstrated responsible efforts to manage his financial situation. He acquired a second job and attended financial counseling. His Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing listed all debts and was expected to result in a complete discharge without complications.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the mitigating conditions that the debt was not recent and the applicant had resolved or demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve the debts. The judge determined that the favorable evidence, including the applicant's proactive steps to address his financial issues, outweighed the unfavorable evidence, thereby supporting his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant demonstrated responsible efforts to manage his debts, including acquiring a second job and attending financial counseling.
He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing all debts, and was expected to receive a complete discharge without complications.
The judge found that the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence, supporting the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Caused by Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Taken Positive Steps to Address the Financial Issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 20, 2017
Answer filedOct 28, 2017
Hearing heldJan 10, 2018
Decision dateJan 16, 2018

Cite For

Demonstrating Responsible Financial Management Under Guideline F
Successful Mitigation of Financial Considerations Due to Extenuating Circumstances
Impact of Bankruptcy on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 incurred significant debt primarily due to his ex-wife's medical treatment and other financial difficulties, which he admitted. The applicant's financial situation was mitigated by his efforts to address the debts, including filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and completing financial counseling, leading to a decision in his favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred significant debt related to his wife’s treatment.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.b	Applicant let other accounts fall into default as he fought to pay his wife’s medical bills.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.c	The debts total $32,458. $32,458	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.d	Applicant is required to pay his ex-wife alimony of $2,600 per month until December 2020. $2,600	For Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.e	On October 27, 2017, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.	For Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—

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. 17-03182 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

January 16, 2018 ______________

DECISION

______________

GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:

On October 20, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.1 Applicant responded to the SOR on October 28, 2017, and requested a decision based on the administrative record. On January 4, 2018, he requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 4, 2018. Applicant waived the 15-day notice requirement. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 10, 2018. On that date, after the hearing, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant is a 31-year-old, U.S. citizen who has worked for a defense contractor since September 2015. He served in the Marine Corps from 2004 to 2009 and was honorably discharged. He held a security clearance from 2005 to 2010. He is divorced and has no children. (GE 1.)

Applicant married his ex-wife in 2007. In 2011 his wife developed debilitating medical issues that required extensive hospitalizations. Despite having medical insurance, Applicant incurred significant debt related to his wife’s treatment. Applicant also let other accounts fall into default as he fought to pay his wife’s medical bills. The medical debt and consumer debt incurred during that time frame was alleged in the SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.v, which Applicant admitted. (GE 1; GE 2.) The debts total $32,458. (GE 3; GE 4.)

While Applicant’s debts were accruing, he attempted to address them responsibly. He acquired a second full-time job at a retail store to bring in more income. He only spent money on necessities. He attended financial counseling. However, he could not earn enough despite these efforts to pay all of his debts. His financial difficulties were compounded by unemployment in 2013, his marital separation in November 2016, and his April 2017 divorce from his ex-wife. He is required to pay his ex-wife alimony of $2,600 per month until December 2020. (GE 1; AE F.)

On October 27, 2017, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. He listed each of the debts alleged in to SOR. His attorney reported, “there are no evident issues in his case; his complete discharge is expected with no complications or issues.” (AE A; AE B; AE G.) He has completed financial counseling and is not incurring new debt. (AE H.)

Mitigating conditions set out in AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b) have been established by the evidence. There is no doubt about Applicant’s current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole- person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him national security eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Jennifer Goldstein 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.