CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03181.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03181.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03181.h1

grantedDec 6, 2016· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A security clearance was granted to an applicant whose financial considerations, specifically Guideline F, were initially a concern. The issue stemmed from the applicant co-signing a mortgage loan for his stepson in 2008 for approximately $86,000. When the stepson became unable to make payments, the creditor foreclosed on the loan in 2013, and the debt was subsequently turned over to a collection agency in 2014.

From October 2014 through April 2016, the stepson made $250 monthly payments. However, in August 2016, the applicant took decisive action, settling the outstanding debt with the collection agency by making a payment of $15,000, which released him from further liability.

This resolution of the sole allegation in the Statement of Reasons, coupled with the applicant's demonstrated plan and significant actions to address the financial issue, led to the favorable outcome. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial history did not raise doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, resulting in the security clearance being granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant settled the outstanding debt with a payment of $15,000, resolving the sole allegation in the SOR.
He demonstrated a plan to address his financial issues and took significant actions to implement that plan.
The judge concluded that the applicant's financial history did not create doubt about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Taken Steps to Resolve the Issues.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Repay Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Resolved the Debt in Question.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has a Plan to Resolve His Financial Problems and Has Taken Significant Action to Implement That Plan.

Key Rule Quoted

“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2016
Answer filedMay 25, 2016
Hearing heldOct 26, 2016
Decision dateDec 6, 2016

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations

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 significant financial issue related to a mortgage loan he cosigned for his stepson, which ultimately went into foreclosure. However, the applicant took steps to resolve the debt, including settling it with a payment of $15,000, leading to a conclusion that the financial concerns were mitigated and the applicant was granted security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant cosigned a mortgage loan for his stepson in 2008 for approximately $86,000. The creditor foreclosed on the loan in 2013. The debt was turned over to a collection agency in 2014. From October 2014 through April 2016, Applicant’s stepson made $250 monthly payments on the debt. In August 2016, Applicant settled the outstanding debt to the collection agency with a payment of $15,000 and was released from further liability. $86,000	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	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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03181 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Michael J. Harris, Esq.

12/06/2016 ______________

Decision

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

On May 8, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken 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) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant responded to the SOR on May 25, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on July 15, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on October 26, 2016. On November 30, 2016, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant cosigned a mortgage loan for his stepson in 2008 for approximately $86,000 (the sole SOR allegation). His stepson ran into some legal difficulties and was unable to make the required mortgage payments. Applicant made the payments on this loan and on his own mortgage for some time until he could no longer afford to do so. The creditor foreclosed on the loan in 2013. The debt was turned over to a collection agency in 2014. From October 2014 through April 2016, Applicant’s stepson made $250 monthly payments on the debt. In August 2016, Applicant settled the outstanding debt to the collection agency with a payment of $15,000 and was released from further liability. Applicant settled, or otherwise resolved the debt alleged in the SOR. He had a plan to resolve his financial problems, and he has taken significant action to implement that plan. 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), 20(c), 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge