CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03296.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03296.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03296.h1

grantedDec 28, 2016· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant, a long-term security clearance holder, whose eligibility was reviewed under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to debts primarily incurred during a period of unemployment. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) specifically alleged four debts.

However, the applicant successfully paid or otherwise resolved all of these outstanding debts. Furthermore, the applicant had maintained a security clearance for over 12 years and possessed an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. These factors demonstrated that the past financial issues did not raise current doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, or ability to protect classified information.

Consequently, the mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 20(a) through 20(e) were applied. Given the resolution of all debts, the applicant's extensive history of holding a clearance, and his proven trustworthiness, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts alleged in the SOR.
He has successfully held a security clearance for over 12 years.
Applicant demonstrated an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)notedThe Person Has Received Counseling or Treatment for the Behavior.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Financial Responsibility.
AG ¶ 20(e)notedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan for Financial Stability.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 2, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 20, 2016
Decision dateDec 28, 2016

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of a Long History of Security Clearance
Consideration of the 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 financial concerns primarily due to unemployment but had resolved all debts. The applicant's long history of holding a security clearance and his excellent reputation contributed to the decision to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s SOR alleged four debts under Guideline F that were caused primarily by unemployment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
1.b	He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
1.c	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.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—
1.d	Applicant has successfully held a clearance for over 12 years and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	—

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. 15-03296 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Joshua D. Hedrick, Esq.

12/28/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On August 23, 2012, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On November 2, 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 May 2, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On June 20, 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 four debts under Guideline F that were caused primarily by unemployment. He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant has successfully held a clearance for over 12 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 following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).

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 him 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.