CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01218.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01218.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01218.h1

grantedMay 5, 2017· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a security clearance decision for a retired U.S. Air Force master sergeant, who faced financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant's financial difficulties stemmed from an unexpected job layoff and subsequent unemployment.

The Statement of Reasons alleged three specific delinquent debts: a charged-off second mortgage loan for $89,522, which was paid in full in May 2016; a charged-off credit card account for $437, satisfied in May 2016; and another charged-off credit card account for $4,695, paid as of October 2016.

The applicant provided reliable documentation confirming that all these delinquent debts were resolved. Applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d), the judge determined that the financial issues were due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Consequently, the applicant met the burden of persuasion, and the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant provided reliable documentation showing all delinquent debts were resolved.
Financial difficulties were due to an unexpected job layoff and subsequent unemployment.
The judge found that the applicant met his burden of persuasion to show eligibility for access to classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Beyond the Applicant's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Good-faith Effort to Repay His Debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Resolved the Delinquent Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 6, 2016
Answer filed—Applicant denied the debts and requested a hearing.
Hearing heldApr 25, 2017
Decision dateMay 5, 2017Summary disposition proposed and accepted.

Cite For

Resolution of Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties
Burden of Persuasion for 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.

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 resolved all three delinquent debts, which were attributed to financial difficulties stemming from a job layoff. The applicant provided documentation showing that the debts were paid in full, leading to a decision in his favor regarding the financial considerations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	charged-off second mortgage loan for $89,522 was paid in full in May 2016 $89,522	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	—	(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
1.b	charged-off credit card account for $437 was satisfied in May 2016 $437	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	(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
1.c	charged-off credit card account for $4,695 was paid as of October 2016 $4,695	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	(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.

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. 16-01218 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/05/2017 ______________

DECISION

______________

LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 format) on May 7, 2015. This document is commonly known as a security clearance application. Thereafter, on October 6, 2016, after reviewing the application and the 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 is similar to a complaint. It detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR; he denied the three delinquent debts alleged in the SOR on the basis that the debts were resolved; and he requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on February 7, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 25, 2017. After the hearing was completed, I proposed to the parties that the case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.2 Department Counsel had ten days to object to a summary disposition, and on May 1, 2017, Department Counsel stated they had no objection. The transcript of the hearing was received on May 4, 2017.

The pertinent facts are as follows: Applicant, a retired U.S. Air Force master sergeant, experienced financial problems resulting in the three delinquent debts in the SOR. He had financial problems due to an unexpected job layoff in 2012, which was followed by periods of unemployment and underemployment until he secured his current job with a defense contractor in 2015. He presented reliable documentation showing the charged-off second mortgage loan for $89,522 was paid in full in May 2016; the charged-off credit card account for $437 was satisfied in May 2016; and the charged-off credit card account for $4,695 was paid as of October 2016.

In light of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by him or proven by Department Counsel. I also conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d). I further 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.

Michael H. Leonard Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This action was taken under Executive Order (E.O.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (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). 2 A summary disposition is simply a procedural device that allows for a speedy, more streamlined decision when the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable clearance decision for an applicant and there are no foreseeable appellate issues.