Loading case…

ISCR 16-00590.h1: Guideline F security clearance hearing, granted (2016) · CASE

ISCR Case 16-00590.h1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00590.h1

grantedDec 21, 2016· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A security clearance was granted to an applicant despite concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) regarding a past-due mortgage loan. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited this outstanding debt.

However, the judge found that the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve the mortgage issue. This effort included actively addressing the matter through ongoing litigation.

Based on the clear and substantial evidence presented, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation did not raise concerns about her reliability or trustworthiness, leading to the granting of the security clearance.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant presented clear and substantial evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve her mortgage loan issue.
The mortgage matter is being addressed through a lawsuit, indicating proactive steps taken by the applicant.
The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues do not affect her reliability or trustworthiness.

Conditions referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has Made a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial Problem.

Key rule quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s problematic mortgage loan do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedMay 18, 2016
Answer filedNot specified
Hearing heldNov 10, 2016
Decision dateDec 21, 2016Post-hearing matters submitted on December 9, 2016.

Cite for

Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F for Financial Considerations
Good-faith Efforts in Resolving Financial Issues
Impact of Ongoing Litigation on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Delinquent debt cited: $54,000: “she made the necessary application in August 2014, she stopped making mortgage payments in November 2014, and about a year later the mortgage lender requested she sign a promissory note for $54,000 and subsequently lowered their offer to $22,440.”

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 past-due mortgage loan that was being resolved through a lawsuit. The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to address the mortgage issue, leading to a conclusion that the financial concerns were mitigated, resulting in a decision to grant the security clearance.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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. 16-00590 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

12/21/2016 ______________

DECISION

______________

LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 Format) on September 30, 2015. Thereafter, on May 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 her eligibility for access to classified information. 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; she admitted a single allegation concerning a past-due mortgage loan; and she requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on August 23, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 10, 2016. After Applicant’s timely submission of post-hearing matters on December 9, 2016, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor, because the evidence shows that Applicant has explained and mitigated the sole financial issue and there are no foreseeable appellate issues. Both Applicant and Department Counsel had ten days to consider the matter and lodge an objection to a summary disposition, but neither Applicant nor Department Counsel objected.

Applicant obtained a mortgage loan to buy residential real estate in 2008, and maintained it as a primary residence until 2010, when she moved to another state for her current job. She continued to pay the mortgage loan until 2014, when she sought loss-mitigation assistance from the mortgage lender, who, in turn, suggested a deed in lieu of foreclosure. She made the necessary application in August 2014, she stopped making mortgage payments in November 2014, and about a year later the mortgage lender requested she sign a promissory note for $54,000 and subsequently lowered their offer to $22,440. She declined both offers, because she had no more money to spend on the property and a cash contribution was not disclosed when the mortgage lender suggested the deed in lieu of foreclosure. Currently, the mortgage lender is suing Applicant for foreclosure. Likewise, Applicant is suing the mortgage lender for bad-faith loan servicing practices by engaging in civil extortion during the deed in lieu of foreclosure process. Applicant’s attorney believes the matter will be resolved by settlement, but it will take some time as the mortgage lender has been slow to act.

Applicant presented clear and substantial evidence that she made a good-faith effort to resolve the mortgage loan, the matter is now being resolved through a lawsuit in state court, and she is not otherwise financially overextended. Accordingly, based on the evidence as a whole, I conclude the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d).

The concerns over Applicant’s problematic mortgage loan 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 or vice versa. 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.

Michael H. Leonard Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

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 replace the guidelines in Enclosure 2 to the Directive. Exhibits A–H.