ISCR Case 15-07697.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07697.h1

grantedJun 8, 2017· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor and military veteran was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons cited several financial allegations, including an unsubstantiated $1,301 debt, a $112 debt that could not be confirmed by the collection company or original holder, and a $235 debt that was paid. Additionally, a March 2015 credit report listed a charged-off account with a $24,097 balance from November 2009. Alcohol-related concerns included incidents away from work and habitual or binge consumption leading to impaired judgment.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He resolved his tax issues through a timely installment agreement and demonstrated responsible alcohol consumption, including completing court-ordered counseling after a DUI. The judge applied mitigating conditions for both financial and alcohol-related issues, noting the applicant's proactive steps to address his obligations.

Ultimately, the applicant's favorable character evidence and honorable military service also contributed to the decision. The judge found that the applicant had taken significant steps to resolve his financial obligations and demonstrated responsible alcohol consumption, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved his tax issues through an installment agreement and completed payments on time.
He demonstrated responsible alcohol consumption and completed court-ordered counseling after his DUI.
The applicant's favorable character evidence and honorable military service contributed to the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns or Failure to Pay Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax as Required
G.22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

F.20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was Infrequent
F.20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
F.20(g)appliedArrangements with Tax Authority
G.23(a)appliedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was Infrequent
G.23(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use Pattern and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome It

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2016
Answer filedAug 9, 2016
Hearing heldMar 20, 2017
Decision dateJun 8, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Through Repayment Plans Under Guideline F
Demonstrating Responsible Alcohol Consumption and Completion of Treatment Under Guideline G
Consideration of Favorable Character Evidence and Military Service 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant stated, without documentation, that he paid the $1,301 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. $1,301	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
1.b	He stated that he contacted both the collection company and the original holder of the $112 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b, and neither could confirm that he had a delinquent debt. $112	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
1.c	The October 2016 credit report established that Applicant paid the $235 debt alleged in SOR 1.c. $235	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant’s March 2015 credit report lists the debt as an individual charged-off account, with a date of last action of November 2009 and a $24,097 balance. $24,097	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant stated, without documentation, that he paid the $1,301 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a.

$1,301

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

1.b

He stated that he contacted both the collection company and the original holder of the $112 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b, and neither could confirm that he had a delinquent debt.

$112

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

1.c

The October 2016 credit report established that Applicant paid the $235 debt alleged in SOR 1.c.

$235

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant’s March 2015 credit report lists the debt as an individual charged-off account, with a date of last action of November 2009 and a $24,097 balance.

$24,097

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

1.e

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.b	habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.c–2.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

2.b

habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

2.c–2.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES