CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07074.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07074.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07074.h1

grantedDec 12, 2016· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

A long-time security clearance holder was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant faced allegations regarding three unpaid debts, which primarily stemmed from uncovered medical expenses and a failed business venture.

However, the judge determined that the applicant had successfully resolved all three outstanding debts. Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a strong history of reliability, having held a security clearance for approximately 29 years without any reported incidents.

The decision to grant the clearance was also supported by the applicant's excellent reputation for trustworthiness. The mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) were applied, leading to the favorable outcome.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved three unpaid debts related to medical expenses and a failed business.
Applicant has held a security clearance for approximately 29 years without incident.
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 Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Financial Problems.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has a Good Track Record of Financial Responsibility.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Willingness to Address Financial Issues.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has a Long History of Holding a Security Clearance Without Incident.

Key Rule Quoted

“I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 21, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldJun 21, 2016
Decision dateDec 12, 2016

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F
Consideration of Long-term Clearance History
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 three unpaid debts primarily due to medical expenses and a failed business. However, the applicant successfully resolved three debts and demonstrated a long history of trustworthiness, leading to a decision in favor of granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has three unpaid debts that resulted primarily from uncovered medical expenses and a failed business.	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–1.c	2 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. 15-07074 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

12/12/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On May 4, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On March 21, 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 18, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On June 21, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the hearing, I held the record open until July 29, 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 three unpaid debts that resulted primarily from uncovered medical expenses and a failed business. He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved three debts. Applicant has held a clearance for approximately 29 years without incident and 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 security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 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 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.