CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00046.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00046.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00046.h1

grantedDec 21, 2016· Hon. Robert J. Tuider· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant seeking a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Statement of Reasons alleged a history of financial problems, specifically noting that these issues arose from family-related tragedies. However, the Statement of Reasons also acknowledged that the applicant had paid or otherwise resolved all outstanding debts.

The judge applied several mitigating conditions, ultimately finding that the applicant had successfully addressed the financial concerns. Key factors in this determination included the resolution of all debts and financial issues. Furthermore, the applicant had maintained a security clearance for over ten years, during which he established an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.

Based on these mitigating factors, the judge concluded that the financial concerns did not negatively impact the applicant's reliability or trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved all debts and financial issues.
He maintained a security clearance for over ten years with an excellent reputation.
The judge found that the financial concerns did not affect his reliability or trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Resolved.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Applicant Has a Good Reputation for Trustworthiness.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Responsible Financial History.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Shown Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Applicant's Financial Issues Were Due to Circumstances Beyond His Control.

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 issuedJun 4, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldSep 12, 2016
Decision dateDec 21, 2016Case was appropriate for summary disposition.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of a Good Reputation in Security Clearance Cases
Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Financial Matters

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 a history of financial problems due to family-related tragedies but had resolved all debts. The financial considerations security concerns were mitigated, leading to a decision in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of financial problems due to family-related tragedies.	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 or otherwise resolved all of his debts.	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. 16-00046 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

12/21/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On March 26, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On June 4, 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 12, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On September 12, 2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, 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’s SOR alleged allegations under Guideline F that were caused by a series of family-related tragedies. He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully has held a clearance over ten years and 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.