CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08275.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08275.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08275.h1

grantedDec 27, 2016· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant seeking a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The applicant, representing themselves, faced two allegations primarily stemming from a housing market collapse. These allegations were successfully resolved, as the applicant either paid, disputed, or otherwise settled all outstanding financial issues.

The judge applied several mitigating conditions, including AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(e). A key factor in the decision was the applicant's excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the financial concerns did not create doubt about the applicant's reliability and judgment. The applicant met the burden of persuasion, and eligibility for access to classified information was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved all allegations related to financial issues.
The applicant has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.
The judge found that financial concerns did not create doubt about the applicant's reliability and judgment.

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 Demonstrated a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Validity of the Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Track Record of Financial Responsibility.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant Has Received Assistance in Managing Financial Obligations.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2016
Answer filedNot specified
Hearing heldOct 26, 2016
Decision dateDec 27, 2016

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Reputation in Security Clearance Decisions
Application of Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations

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 financial issues primarily due to a collapse in the housing market but successfully resolved all allegations. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial concerns were mitigated and granted the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had two allegations under Guideline F that were caused primarily by a collapse in the housing market.	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	He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of the SOR allegations.	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	—

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. 15-08275 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Gina Marine, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

12/27/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On June 22, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On March 18, 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 August 4, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On October 26, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the hearing, I held the record open until November 30, 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 two allegations under Guideline F that were caused primarily by a collapse in the housing market. He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of the SOR allegations. Applicant 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 financial considerations security concerns are resolved in whole or in part 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.