CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06398.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06398.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06398.h1

grantedJan 6, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

A male applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons detailed six allegations under Guideline F, primarily stemming from periods of unemployment or underemployment. However, the applicant successfully resolved all these financial obligations, either through payment, dispute, or other means.

The decision found that the applicant's past financial issues no longer raised doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, or ability to protect classified information. He provided sufficient evidence to explain and mitigate the admitted facts.

Furthermore, the sole allegation under Guideline E, related to personal conduct, was ultimately determined to be unsubstantiated. The applicant also demonstrated an excellent reputation for trustworthiness. Based on the resolution of all financial issues, the unsubstantiated personal conduct allegation, and his strong reputation, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts and financial issues.
The sole allegation under personal conduct was unsubstantiated.
Applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Caused by Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Good-faith Effort to Repay or Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Maintained a Stable Job and Income.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has a Positive Reputation in the Community.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant timely answered the SOR.
Hearing heldAug 3, 2016Hearing was held as scheduled.
Decision dateJan 6, 2017Decision issued after summary disposition.

Cite For

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the sole allegation under Guideline E for personal conduct was unsubstantiated. The applicant's excellent reputation for trustworthiness contributed to the decision to grant security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 history of financial problems but successfully resolved all debts, which mitigated the financial concerns. The applicant's excellent reputation for trustworthiness contributed to the decision to grant security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had six allegations under Guideline F that were caused by unemployment or underemployment.	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, successfully disputed, 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 presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel.	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.e	The sole allegation under personal conduct was subsequently determined to be unsubstantiated.	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.f	Applicant 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. 15-06398 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Gregory F. Greiner, Esq.

01/06/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On December 18, 2014, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On February 6, 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 April 15, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On August 3, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence submitted, 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 six allegations under Guideline F that were caused by unemployment or underemployment. He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of his debts. The sole allegation under personal conduct was subsequently determined to be unsubstantiated. Applicant 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). And, as noted, personal conduct concerns were determined to be 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.