Loading case…

ISCR 14-02830.h1: Guideline F security clearance hearing, granted (2017) · CASE

ISCR Case 14-02830.h1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02830.h1

grantedJan 18, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This security clearance decision involved an applicant whose financial history, specifically uncovered medical expenses incurred during a separation and divorce, raised concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Disqualifying condition F.3 was initially identified due to these issues.

However, the applicant successfully demonstrated significant mitigation. She regained control of her finances, resolving all outstanding debts. Furthermore, she had maintained a top secret clearance for the past 15 years without incident, establishing a long-standing record of reliability.

The decision ultimately applied mitigating conditions F.2, F.3, F.4, and F.5, recognizing her financial responsibility and excellent reputation for trustworthiness. Based on these factors, the applicant was GRANTED her security clearance.

Why the applicant prevailed

Applicant regained control of her finances and resolved all debts.
She successfully held a top secret clearance for the past 15 years.
Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability 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 Problems
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 issuedApr 1, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 15, 2016
Decision dateJan 18, 2017

Cite for

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility
Consideration 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.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Clearance at issue: Top Secret: “Applicant successfully held a top secret clearance for the past 15 years.”
Held a clearance before: Yes: “Applicant successfully held a top secret clearance for the past 15 years.”

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 concerns primarily related to uncovered medical expenses stemming from a separation and divorce. However, the applicant demonstrated that she regained control of her finances and resolved her debts, leading to a decision in her favor regarding her security clearance.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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. 14-02830 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/18/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On February 22, 2013, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On April 1, 2015, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 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 November 7, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On November 15, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed 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 uncovered medical expenses that arose during a separation and divorce. She has regained control of her finances and is paying or has otherwise resolved all of her debts. Applicant successfully held a top secret clearance for the past 15 years. She also 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 her 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 she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her 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 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to September 1, 2006 and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.