CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04488.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04488.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04488.h1

grantedDec 7, 2016· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged financial issues, specifically three debts totaling $23,825.

However, the applicant successfully demonstrated that these debts were the responsibility of his ex-wife, as stipulated by a 2009 court order from their divorce. Although one of these debts was settled by the applicant with the creditor in August 2016, this action was viewed as a proactive step.

Ultimately, the applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish good financial standing. The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant proving the debts belonged to his ex-wife, his proactive settlement of one debt, and his overall sound financial condition, aligning with mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), (c), (d), and (e).

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant established that the debts were the responsibility of his ex-wife due to a court order.
Applicant settled one of the debts, demonstrating proactive financial management.
Evidence showed that the applicant is in good financial standing.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Shown a Change in Circumstances.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Taken Positive Steps to Address Financial Issues.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Good Faith Effort to Repay Debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Track Record of Financial Responsibility.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 11, 2015
Answer filedJan 21, 2016
Hearing heldAug 23, 2016
Decision dateNov 30, 2016Proposed summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Responsibility of Debts Assigned to Ex-spouse
Good Financial Standing as a Mitigating Factor

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's financial concerns were mitigated, as the debts in question were determined to be the responsibility of his ex-wife according to a court order. The applicant demonstrated good financial standing and settled one of the debts, leading to a decision in his favor regarding security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant established through documentation that the three SOR debts in the amount of $23,825 were the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to a court order entered in his divorce case in 2009. $23,825	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (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	Despite the order, Applicant settled one of the debts with the creditor in August 2016.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (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	Applicant’s evidence established that he is in good financial standing.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-04488 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

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

12/07/2016 ______________

Decision

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

On December 11, 2015, 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 January 21, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 24, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on August 23, 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 established through documentation that the three SOR debts in the amount of $23,825 were the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to a court order entered in his divorce case in 2009. Despite the order, Applicant settled one of the debts with the creditor in August 2016. Applicant’s evidence established that he is in good financial standing. 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(c), 20(d), and 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. 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