CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04549.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04549.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04549.h1

grantedDec 9, 2016· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old married male applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited one unpaid credit card debt of approximately $18,000, incurred during his first marriage, as a disqualifying condition (F.3).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He settled and paid the outstanding credit card debt and is currently current on all his existing financial obligations.

The judge determined that these actions demonstrated the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, concluding that his past financial issues no longer posed a security risk. Consequently, the security clearance was granted, with mitigating conditions F.2.a, F.2.b, F.2.c, and F.2.d applied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant settled and paid the unpaid credit card debt.
The applicant is current on his existing financial obligations.
The judge found that the applicant's financial issues did not affect his reliability or trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2.aappliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
F.2.bappliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.2.crejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
F.2.dappliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 1, 2016
Answer filedMay 2, 2016
Hearing heldAug 9, 2016
Decision dateDec 9, 2016Summary disposition proposed on December 2, 2016.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Criteria for Summary Disposition in Security Clearance Cases
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.

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 an unpaid credit card debt of approximately $18,000, which was incurred during his first marriage. The applicant settled and paid this debt, and the judge concluded that the applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, ultimately deciding in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has one unpaid credit card debt totaling about $18,000. $18,000	For Applicant	Credit Card 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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 15-04549 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

December 9, 2016

______________

DECISION

______________

ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP), on May 27, 2014. (Government Exhibit 1.) On April 1, 2016, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 2, 2016 (Answer), and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 21, 2016. This case was assigned to me on June 27, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 14, 2016. I convened the hearing as scheduled on August 9, 2016. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through C, which were also admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 17, 2016.

Based on a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits and testimony, I proposed to the parties in writing that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. This was done by an email dated December 2, 2016. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter, and provided written notice that he did not object on December 4, 2016. Applicant provided written notice that he did not object on December 5, 2016.

Applicant is 39, and married for the second time. He had one unpaid credit card debt totaling about $18,000. Applicant has settled and paid the debt, which was incurred during his first marriage, and is current on his existing obligations. 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 security concerns are resolved 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 or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant 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.

Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.