CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-07856.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-07856.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07856.h1

grantedJan 31, 2017· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged a delinquent mortgage debt and unpaid consumer debts.

However, the applicant successfully demonstrated that he had paid or settled all consumer debts listed in the SOR. Regarding the delinquent mortgage, he provided documentary evidence showing that this debt was solely the responsibility of his ex-wife, as stipulated in their legal separation agreement, and that she was actively making payments on it.

Based on these mitigating factors, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues were resolved. Consequently, the security clearance was granted, with mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(e) applied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant paid or settled all consumer debts listed in the SOR.
Delinquent mortgage debt was the responsibility of his ex-wife per their legal separation agreement.
Documentary evidence showed the ex-wife was making payments on the mortgage debt.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Financial Responsibility.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Expectation of Financial Stability in the Future.

Key Rule Quoted

“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 29, 2016
Answer filedMay 23, 2016
Hearing heldJan 11, 2017
Decision dateJan 31, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Responsibility for Debts in the Context of Legal Agreements

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 paid or settled all consumer debts listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and that a delinquent mortgage debt was the responsibility of his ex-wife. The judge concluded that the applicant is in good financial standing and that the financial concerns were mitigated, resulting in a decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a delinquent mortgage debt that is the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to their legal separation agreement.	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	—	(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	Applicant has consumer debts that he has not paid or settled.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-07856 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Andrea Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/31/2017 ______________

Decision

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

On April 29, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant responded to the SOR on May 23, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on September 28, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 11, 2017. On January 18, 2017, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant established through documentation that he paid or settled all of his consumer debts listed in the SOR. He also established that the delinquent mortgage debt was the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to their legal separation agreement. Despite his lack of responsibility for the mortgage debt, he provided documentary evidence showing that his ex-wife was making payments on the debt. Applicant’s evidence established that he is in good financial standing. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated 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 whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. 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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge