CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04687.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04687.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04687.h1

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

Summary

This case concerns a long-time security clearance holder whose eligibility was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons primarily cited a history of debts, largely stemming from uncovered medical expenses. Disqualifying conditions F.3 and E.2 were initially raised regarding these financial issues and potential personal conduct implications.

However, the applicant successfully resolved all outstanding debts, either through payment, dispute, or other resolution methods. This demonstrated a commitment to financial responsibility. Furthermore, the applicant had maintained a security clearance for over 20 years without any prior incidents, establishing a long-standing record of trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the personal conduct concerns were found to be unsubstantiated. Given the resolution of all financial obligations and the applicant's extensive history of reliable clearance holding, the mitigating conditions F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, and F.6 were applied. The security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts and demonstrated financial responsibility.
He has held a security clearance for over 20 years without incident.
Personal conduct concerns were found to be unsubstantiated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
E.2raisedPersonal Conduct That Creates a Risk of Unauthorized Disclosure

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.3appliedThe Person Has Received Counseling for the Financial Problem
F.4appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
F.5appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Expect to Be Able to Satisfy Debts
F.6appliedThe Person Has 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 issuedJan 25, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 27, 2016
Decision dateDec 28, 2016

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Unsubstantiated Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that personal conduct concerns were unsubstantiated and did not warrant disqualification. The applicant's financial issues were resolved, and he demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 number of debts primarily due to uncovered medical expenses, all of which have been paid, disputed, or resolved. The judge concluded that the financial considerations security concerns were mitigated, and the applicant's long history of holding a clearance without incident contributed to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had a number of debts primarily as a result of uncovered medical expenses.	For Applicant	Medical 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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of his debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	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 (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	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. 15-04687 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Gina Marine, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.

12/28/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On April 30, 2014, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). 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.1 The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as Guideline F for financial considerations and E for personal conduct. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. On August 4, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On October 27, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the hearing, I held the record open until November 18, 2016, to afford Applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence. Applicant timely submitted numerous documents. After reviewing Applicant’s post-hearing documents, 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 had a number of debts primarily as a result of uncovered medical expenses. He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant has held a clearance for over 20 years without incident and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. Personal conduct concerns were determined to be unsubstantiated. 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 under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e) and as noted personal conduct concerns were unsubstantiated.

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.