CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-00601.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-00601.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00601.h1

grantedFeb 3, 2017· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A former U.S. Navy member was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited a single delinquent second mortgage account, charged off at $91,354, as a disqualifying condition (F.3).

However, the judge determined that this was the applicant's only outstanding debt, stemming from a foreclosure during the 2008 recession. The applicant demonstrated proactive and responsible efforts to resolve the financial difficulty, including attempts at loan modifications and a short sale.

Crucially, the applicant provided substantial evidence of current financial stability and effective debt management. Based on these mitigating factors (F.2, F.3, F.4, F.6), the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant had only one delinquent debt, which was due to a foreclosure during the recession.
He took responsible actions to address his financial difficulties, including attempting loan modifications and a short sale.
The applicant provided substantial evidence of his current financial stability and ability to manage debts.

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 Problem
F.4appliedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Debt Repayment
F.6appliedThe Person Has a Reasonable Expectation of Financial Security

Key Rule Quoted

“The security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions under Guideline F: AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), (c), and (d).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 25, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 19, 2016
Decision dateFeb 3, 2017

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Considerations
Responsible Actions Taken to Address Financial Difficulties
Evidence of Financial Stability and Management Capabilities

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 single delinquent debt related to a second mortgage account that had been charged-off for $91,354. However, the applicant demonstrated sufficient evidence of financial responsibility and the ability to resolve current debts, leading to a decision in favor of granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was indebted for a second mortgage account that had been charged-off in the amount of $91,354, which remained delinquent. $91,354	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	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	—

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. 15-00601 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Catie E. Young, Esq.

February 3, 2017

______________

DECISION

______________

JUDGE, Martin H. Mogul, Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 Format) on February 1, 2013. On January 25, 2016, 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. The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the Security Guideline F for Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on May 23, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on July 19, 2016. On December 8, 2016, I proposed to the parties by email that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel and Applicant’s counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and written notice was provided that Department Counsel did not object.

The allegation concerning Guideline F was that Applicant was indebted for a second mortgage account that had been charged-off in the amount of $91,354, which remained delinquent. 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. I considered that the evidence established that Applicant has only had one delinquent debt, which resulted in a foreclosure of his primary residence in 2009, and that before and since that year, Applicant has satisfied all of his other debts. Applicant’s delinquent debt arose because a home he purchased in 2005, while in the United States Navy, lost more than half its value in the recession of 2008, and Applicant could not afford to make the payments toward the mortgage. When Applicant found himself with a debt that he was unable to satisfy, he acted responsibly, first by attempting a loan modification, and then by attempting to sell his home through a short-sale. Both attempts were not successful, and the home was foreclosed.

Applicant submitted a significant number of documents, including but not limited to: a certificate and worksheets showing he has taken an online Credit Counseling and Budget Brief Action Plan course, a Personal Financial Statement, Applicant’s retirement saving’s plan, his current income information, and a copy of his current bank statement. These documents establish that Applicant is able to resolve all of his current debts in a timely manner, and that he is unlikely to have financial difficulties in the future. Therefore, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions under Guideline F: AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), (c), and (d).

The concerns over Applicant’s one delinquent debt 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 whether or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant has 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.

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

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.