A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-07856.h1
GrantedDecided Jan 31, 2017 · Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial considerations. He demonstrated that he had paid or settled all consumer debts and that a delinquent mortgage debt was solely the responsibility of his ex-wife, who was making payments on it. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues were mitigated, allowing for the granting of his security clearance.
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) The behavior was not recent.applied
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's control.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem.noted
- AG ¶ 20(d) The person has established a good track record of financial responsibility.applied
- AG ¶ 20(e) The individual has a reasonable expectation of financial stability in the future.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 04/29/2016
- Answer filed
- 05/23/2016
- Hearing held
- 01/11/2017
- Decision date
- 01/31/2017
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.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
- Payment Plan
- yes
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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