CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-06871.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-06871.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06871.h1

grantedJan 18, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant seeking a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing himself, faced allegations regarding unpaid student loans that accumulated during a period of unemployment.

Upon securing full-time employment, the applicant took steps to regain control of his financial situation. He successfully resolved all outstanding debts, demonstrating a commitment to addressing his financial obligations.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant's proactive resolution of his debts, his consistent maintenance of an interim clearance since 2014, and his established reputation for trustworthiness all contributed to a favorable outcome. The clearance was ultimately GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant regained control of his finances after obtaining full-time employment.
He has resolved all debts and maintained an interim clearance since 2014.
The applicant has a 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 for the Problem.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2016
Answer filedNot specified
Hearing heldJun 20, 2016
Decision dateJan 18, 2017Case was appropriate for summary disposition.

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Employment in Mitigating Financial Issues
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 financial concerns primarily related to unpaid student loans due to unemployment. However, the applicant demonstrated that he has regained control of his finances and resolved his debts, leading to a decision in his favor under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has student loans that he was unable to pay as a result of unemployment.	For Applicant	Student Loan 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	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.b–1.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

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. 15-06871 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/18/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On April 24, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On February 26, 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 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 allegations under Guideline F consisting primarily of student loans that he was unable to pay as a result of unemployment. Since obtaining full-time employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant has successfully held an interim clearance since 2014 and has a 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 mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 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 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.