CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03465.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03465.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03465.h1

grantedMay 15, 2018· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant seeking a clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Statement of Reasons cited a past-due mortgage, credit card debt, and cell phone bills as concerns, raising Disqualifying Condition F.3.

However, the applicant, representing himself, demonstrated that he had regained control of his finances and resolved all outstanding debts. The decision applied Mitigating Conditions F.2, F.3, F.4, and F.5.

Ultimately, the clearance was GRANTED. This was based on the applicant's successful resolution of all debts, his eight-year history of holding a secret clearance, and his excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant has regained control of his finances and resolved all debts.
He successfully held a secret clearance for the past eight years.
Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.3appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial Problem
F.4appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
F.5appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Expect to Be Able to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 6, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 16, 2018
Decision dateMay 15, 2018Case was appropriate for summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Mitigating Conditions Applicable to Financial Issues
Importance of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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 a history of financial issues, including a past-due mortgage, credit card debt, and unpaid cell phone bills. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that he has regained control of his finances and resolved all debts, leading to a decision in his favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	past-due mortgage	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	credit card debt	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	cell phone bills	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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. 17-03465 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

05/15/2018 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On March 24, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On November 6, 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 7, 2018, the case was assigned to me. On April 16, 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 alleged allegations under Guideline F consisting primarily of a past-due mortgage, credit card debt, and cell phone bills that arose following an untenable and costly housing situation and income loss after his spouse’s work hours were significantly reduced. Applicant has regained control of his finances and paid, is paying, or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a secret clearance for the past eight years and 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 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 or vice versa. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Robert J. 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.