A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08045.h1
GrantedDecided Dec 5, 2016 · Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial issues stemming from his wife's illness and job loss, which led to mortgage delinquencies and foreclosure. The judge found that the applicant's current financial situation was stable and that the previous issues did not reflect on his reliability or trustworthiness, resulting in a decision to grant the security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's current finances are sound and stable.
- There is no evidence of creditors seeking deficiencies on the loans after foreclosure.
- The applicant demonstrated that past financial issues do not reflect his current reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recent.applied
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were beyond the applicant's control.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The applicant has taken positive steps to resolve his financial issues.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 05/12/2016
- Answer filed
- 06/10/2016
- Hearing held
- 11/14/2016
- Decision date
- 12/05/2016
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Consideration of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Reliability Assessments
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.
- 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. 15-08045 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
12/05/2016 ______________
Decision
______________
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:
On May 12, 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 June 10, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 9, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 14, 2016. On November 29, 2016, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
Applicant’s wife became sick and incurred substantial medical bills. She also lost her job. Applicant’s first and second mortgage loans became delinquent, and his house was eventually lost to foreclosure in about 2015. There is no evidence that the creditors are seeking any deficiencies owed on the loans. Applicant’s current finances are sound. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(c).
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. 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.
________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge