CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08358.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08358.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08358.h1

grantedDec 9, 2016· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old married applicant was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited two unpaid medical debts totaling approximately $10,000 and a 2012 conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. These issues raised disqualifying conditions F1 and J1.

However, the applicant successfully demonstrated mitigating factors. All unpaid medical debts were resolved, and the applicant is now current on all existing financial obligations, satisfying mitigating conditions F2, F3, and F4. Regarding the DUI, the applicant fulfilled all sentencing requirements and no longer engages in such behavior, addressing mitigating conditions J2 and J3.

Ultimately, the evidence presented established the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness, which outweighed the past financial and criminal conduct. As a result, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant paid off unpaid medical debts and is current on existing obligations.
Applicant fulfilled sentencing requirements for DUI conviction and no longer engages in such behavior.
The evidence presented showed that the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness outweighed past issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
J1raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

F2appliedFinancial Considerations
F3appliedFinancial Considerations
F4appliedFinancial Considerations
J2appliedCriminal Conduct
J3appliedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 25, 2016
Answer filedMay 6, 2016
Hearing heldSep 16, 2016
Decision dateDec 9, 2016

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions Under Guidelines F and J
Resolution of Financial Issues Leading to Favorable Clearance Decisions
Consideration of Rehabilitation in Criminal Conduct Cases

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 two unpaid medical debts totaling about $10,000, which he has since paid and is current on his existing obligations. The judge concluded that the applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, resulting in a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had two unpaid medical debts totaling about $10,000. $10,000	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(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	Documented Debt Paid in Full

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had a history of criminal conduct, specifically a conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2012. However, the judge concluded that the applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns associated with this conduct, resulting in a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of criminal conduct, specifically a conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2012.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—
1.b–1.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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. 15-08358 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Michael A. Meyer, Esquire

December 9, 2016

______________

DECISION

______________

ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP), on April 8, 2015. (Government Exhibit 1.) On March 25, 2016, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and J (Criminal Conduct) concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 6, 2016 (Answer), and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 15, 2016. This case was assigned to me on June 27, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued notices of hearing on July 14, August 8, and August 9, 2016. I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 16, 2016. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called one additional witness, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through E, which were also admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 26, 2016.

Based on a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits and testimony, I proposed to the parties in writing that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. This was done by an email dated November 29, 2016. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter, and provided written notice that he did not object on November 30, 2016. Applicant did not object within ten days of November 29, 2016.

Applicant is 30, and married. He had two unpaid medical debts totaling about $10,000. Applicant has paid the debts and is current on his existing obligations. He also had one arrest and conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2012. Applicant fulfilled the sentencing requirements of the conviction, and no longer drinks and drives. 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 Guidelines F and J. 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 security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), 32(a), and 32(d).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems, and single incident of driving under the influence, 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 Applicant 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.

Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.