A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 15-08785.h1
GrantedDecided Dec 1, 2016 · Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a widow who lost her job in 2009, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to ten unpaid debts totaling approximately $15,470. She successfully resolved most of these debts and demonstrated a proactive plan to address her financial issues, leading to a decision to grant her security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant resolved most of her unpaid debts through payments, settlements, or payment plans.
- She demonstrated a proactive plan to address her financial problems.
- The judge concluded that her financial issues did not raise doubts about her reliability or 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 made a good faith effort to repay the debts.applied
- AG ¶ 20(d) The applicant has a reasonable plan to resolve her financial problems.applied
- AG ¶ 20(e) The applicant has demonstrated a change in circumstances.applied
Key rule quoted
“I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 05/22/2016
- Answer filed
- 06/09/2016
- Hearing held
- 11/15/2016
- Decision date
- 12/01/2016
Cite for
- Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
- Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor
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.
- Delinquent Usd
- 15470
- Payment Plan
- yes
- Bankruptcy
- none
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 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. 15-08785 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se
12/01/2016 ______________
Decision
______________
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:
On May 22, 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 9, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 12, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 15, 2016. On November 28, 2016, I proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.
Applicant’s husband passed away in 2008, and she lost her job in 2009. She accrued ten unpaid debts totaling about $15,470. She paid, settled, made payment plans for, or otherwise resolved most of the debts alleged in the SOR. She has a plan to resolve her financial problems, and she has taken significant action to implement that plan. 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), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e).
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt about her 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 she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.
________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge