ISCR Case 10-01162.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-01162.h1

grantedMay 19, 2011· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old electrical and systems integration engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant intentionally omitted material information from his 2001 SF 86, demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, and exhibited questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, or unreliability. Financial concerns included mortgage debts on investment properties.

The applicant successfully addressed these issues. One property was sold through a short-sale in 2010, and the mortgage lender for another property cancelled the remaining debt. The applicant resolved all financial issues related to his investment properties and is now current on his debts, demonstrating responsible financial management and significant savings.

The judge determined that the applicant's past drug use was not indicative of current untrustworthiness, noting that he provided truthful information during the security clearance process. Ultimately, the applicant was granted eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved all financial issues related to his investment properties and is current on his debts.
The applicant demonstrated responsible financial management and has significant savings.
The applicant's past drug use was not deemed to indicate current untrustworthiness, as he provided truthful information during the security clearance process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.2.craisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Mitigating

F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.2.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
F.2.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
E.3.cappliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
E.3.dappliedThe Individual Has Acknowledged the Behavior and Obtained Counseling

Key Rule Quoted

“The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 28, 2010
Answer filedNov 22, 2010
Hearing heldMar 11, 2011
Decision dateMay 19, 2011

Cite For

Resolution of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Mitigating Factors for Past Drug Use Under Guideline E
Consideration of Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally omitted any material information from his 2001 SF 86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.c	Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.d	A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.e	Evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources.	For Applicant	Misuse of Employer Time or Resources	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.f	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant intentionally omitted any material information from his 2001 SF 86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

2.b

Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

2.c

Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

2.d

A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Unknown

—

2.e

Evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources.

For Applicant

Misuse of Employer Time or Resources

—

Unknown

—

2.f

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Concerning the mortgage debt in SOR ¶ 1.a, this property sold through a short-sale in 2010.	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(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	The mortgage lender for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b cancelled the balance of Applicant’s debt on a third rental property, which did not sell, and provided Applicant with a form 1099-C and a form 1098.	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(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	Applicant financed this property with a primary (SOR ¶ 1.a) and secondary (SOR ¶ 1.c) mortgage.	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(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

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Concerning the mortgage debt in SOR ¶ 1.a, this property sold through a short-sale in 2010.

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(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

The mortgage lender for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b cancelled the balance of Applicant’s debt on a third rental property, which did not sell, and provided Applicant with a form 1099-C and a form 1098.

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(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

Applicant financed this property with a primary (SOR ¶ 1.a) and secondary (SOR ¶ 1.c) mortgage.

For Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(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

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES