CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-17712.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-17712.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-17712.h1

grantedAug 31, 2006· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old payment record analyst was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed approximately $60,076 in delinquent debt, including a $1,400 telephone account, a $25,609 balance from a truck repossession, and a $16,910 credit card account, among others. Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose a $683 judgment from October 2003 and an ongoing delinquency on her security questionnaire.

The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the financial concerns. The majority of the delinquent debt was attributed to her ex-husband's failed trucking business, for which he was primarily responsible. The applicant demonstrated that she had paid off all debts for which she was personally responsible under her divorce decree.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant had demonstrated financial responsibility and the capability to meet her monthly expenses. Based on these mitigating factors, the applicant's eligibility for a sensitive position was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's ex-husband was responsible for the majority of the delinquent debt due to his business failures.
The applicant has paid off the debts she was responsible for under the divorce decree.
The applicant demonstrated financial responsibility and capability to meet her monthly expenses.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

FC DC 1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
FC DC 3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

FC MC 3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
FC MC 6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“"The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 7, 2006
Answer filedFeb 22, 2006
Hearing heldJul 11, 2006
Decision dateAug 31, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Ex-spouse's Debts Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Intent Regarding Financial Disclosures Under Guideline E
Whole Person Concept in Evaluating Trustworthiness for Sensitive Positions Under Guideline J

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not deliberately omit or conceal information regarding her delinquent debts on her security clearance application. The applicant successfully rebutted the allegations of falsification, leading to a favorable decision under Guideline E. The applicant's eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties was granted.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	In response to question "22a. Your Financial Record: In the last 7 years, have you, or a company over which you exercised some control, filed for bankruptcy, been declared bankrupt, been subjected to a tax lien, or had legal judgment rendered against you for a debt?" She did not list a $683 judgment entered against her in October 2003. In response to question "22b. Your Financial Record: Are you now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation?" she also answered, "No."	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The applicant had approximately $60,076 in delinquent debt, primarily stemming from her ex-husband's failed trucking business. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated the financial concerns by paying off her responsible debts and demonstrated financial responsibility post-separation, resulting in a decision in her favor under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$1,400 telephone account placed for collection in June 2000 $1,400	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	$25,609 balance resulting from repossession of her husband's truck in June 2000 $25,609	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$5,485 account past due since June 2000 $5,485	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	$2,204 computer account charged off in June 2000 $2,204	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	$1,738 credit card debt placed for collection in November 2001 $1,738	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	$1,144 credit card account delinquent as of May 2002 $1,144	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	$1,110 medical account placed for collection in October 2002 $1,110	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.h	$1,700 account charged off as a bad debt in December 2002 $1,700	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	$81 medical account placed for collection in May 2003 $81	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.j	$16,910 credit card account placed for collection in July 2003 $16,910	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	$683 judgment entered in October 2003 $683	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	$84 medical account placed for collection in November 2003 $84	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.m	$1,927 cell phone account placed for collection in July 2004 $1,927	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found for the applicant under Guideline J, indicating that the applicant's criminal conduct did not disqualify her from eligibility for a sensitive position. The applicant successfully mitigated any concerns regarding her criminal history, leading to a favorable decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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

DATE: August 31, 2006

In re: --------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Position

P Case No. 05-17712 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ERIN C. HOGAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant has approximately $60,076 in delinquent debt listed on her credit report. Much of the debt arose from her ex- husband's truck driving business, including a $25,000 repossession of an 18-wheeler truck. The final divorce decree makes her ex-husband responsible for the debts that are from his trucking business. This leaves her responsible for approximately $2,676 of the delinquent debt. She has paid the debts that are her responsibility and is capable of meeting her monthly expenses. Applicant's eligibility for a assignment to a sensitive position is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 16, 2004, Applicant submitted an application for a position of public trust - an ADP I/II/III position. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant the application under Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, (Jan, 1987), as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (the "Directive"). (1) On February 7, 2006, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision. The SOR, which is in essence the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct. In a sworn statement dated February 22, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on May 24, 2006. A notice of hearing was issued on June 21, 2006, scheduling the hearing for July 11, 2006. The hearing was conducted on that date. The government submitted three exhibits that were marked as Government Exhibits (Gov Ex) 1-3. The exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf, and submitted two exhibits which were admitted as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A and AE B without objection. The record was held open until August 1, 2006. Applicant timely submitted a 12 page exhibit that was admitted as AE C without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on July 27, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her SOR response, Applicant admits the allegations under Guideline F, ¶¶ 1.a - 1.l, but denies the allegations in ¶¶ 1.m, 2.a, 2.band 3.a. (2) Applicant's admissions are incorporated herein. In addition, after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact: Applicant is a 33 -year-old woman employed as a payment record analyst with a Department of Defense contractor who is seeking a position of public trust. (3) She has worked for the same company for over 11 years, receiving several promotions throughout her career. (4) On August 30, 1997, Applicant got married. Two sons were born of the marriage, ages 7 and 4. (5)

Applicant's husband was a truck driver. At the time of their marriage, he worked for a company. Soon after, he established his own independent trucking company. In 1998, he used Applicant's good credit to qualify for a loan for a new 18-wheeler truck. He also opened credit card accounts and took out loans which were used for his business. (6) He did not pay his expenses which created much of the delinquent debt. In 2000, his truck was repossessed. Applicant was not involved with the day-to-day operations of her husband's business. (7)

On March 15, 2004, Applicant separated from her husband as a result of her husband being unfaithful. She and her children moved out of the family home and moved in with her parents. Her parents have another house on their property. Applicant made improvements to the house. She and her sons have lived there since August 2004. (8)

On August 16, 2004, Applicant completed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position (SF 85-P). (9) She answered, "No." in response to question "22a. Your Financial Record: In the last 7 years, have you, or a company over which you exercised some control, filed for bankruptcy, been declared bankrupt, been subjected to a tax lien, or had legal judgment rendered against you for a debt?" She did not list a $683 judgment entered against her in October 2003. In response to question "22b. Your Financial Record: Are you now over 180 days delinquent on any loan or financial obligation?" she also answered, "No." A subsequent background investigation revealed Applicant has 13 delinquent accounts with a total approximate balance of $60,076. (10)

The accounts included a $1,400 telephone account placed for collection in June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.a); a $25,609 balance resulting from repossession of her husband's truck in June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.b); a $5,485 account past due since June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.c); a $2,204 computer account charged off in June 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.d); a $1,738 credit card debt placed for collection in November 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.e); a $1,144 credit card account delinquent as of May 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.f); a $1,110 medical account placed for collection in October 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.g); a $1,700 account charged off as a bad debt in December 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.h); an $81 medical account placed for collection in May 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.i); a $16,910 credit card account placed for collection in July 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.j); a $683 judgment entered on October 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.k); an $84 medical account placed for collection in November 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.l); and a $1,927 cell phone account placed for collection in July 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.m). A majority of the delinquent debt is related to her husband's unsuccessful trucking business. The final order of divorce dated July 22, 2005, indicated her husband was solely responsible for all debt associated with his trucking company. Applicant was responsible for the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a and another debt, not alleged in the SOR. She is making payments on both debts. (11) She denies the debt alleged in ¶ 1.mwhich is a cell phone account. She claims she never opened a cell phone account with the alleged cell phone company. She contacted the company asking for proof of the debt. They could not provide proof because the company merged with another company. (12)

The current status of the delinquent debts are:

SOR Debt Status Record Paragraph 1.a $1,401 telephone account placed for Paid by Applicant. Tr. at 17, 30-31; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov Ex 3 collection June 2000. at 4; AE C at 5. 1.b $25,609 balance owed after repossession Ex-husband Answer to SOR, Final Order dated July and resale of ex-husband's truck in June responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 2 at 1,; Gov 2000. divorce decree. Ex 3 at 3. 1.c $5,485 delinquent credit card account Ex-husband Answer to SOR, Final Order dated July used for ex-husband's business, charged responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 3 at 3. off in June 2000. divorce decree. 1.d $2,204 computer account for ex-husband's Ex-husband Answer to SOR, Final Order, dated July business, placed for collection in June responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov 2000. divorce decree. Ex 3 at 2. 15. 1.e $1,738 credit card account for ex- Ex-husband Answer to SOR; Final Order, dated July husband's business placed for collection responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov in November 2001. divorce decree. Ex 3 at 2. 1.f $1,144 credit card account for ex- Ex-husband Answer to SOR; Final Order, dated July husband's business, placed for collection responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov in October 2002.. divorce decree. Ex 3 at 2. 1.g $1,110 medical account placed for Paid by Applicant. AE C at 4; Tr. at 17; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov collection in October 2002. Ex 3 at 2. 1.h $1,700 account charged off as a bad debt Ex-husband Answer to SOR; Final Order, dated July in December 2002 related to ex-husband's responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 18; Gov Ex 3 at 3. business. divorce decree. 1.i $81 medical account placed for collection Paid by Applicant. AE C at 4; Tr. at 18; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov in ay 2003. Ex 3 at 2. 1.j $16,910 credit card account related to ex- Ex-husband Answer to SOR; Final Order, dated July husband's business placed for collection responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 18; Gov Ex 2 at 2; Gov in July 2003. divorce decree. Ex 3 at 1. 1.k $683 judgment entered in October 2003, Ex-husband Answer to SOR; Final Order, dated July business loan of ex-husband's. responsible under 22, 2005; Tr. at 18; Gov Ex 3 at 3. divorce decree. 1.l $84 medical account placed for collection Paid by Applicant. AE # at 3; Tr. at 18; Gov Ex 3 at 2. in November 2003. 1.m $1,927 cell phone account placed for Applicant denies Answer to SOR; Tr. at 18-19; Gov Ex 3 collection in July 2004. account. Not aware at 2. of account.

At the time Applicant filled out the SF 85P, she had recently separated from her husband. She was also diagnosed with diabetes in May 2004. It was a stressful time for her and her main focus was finding a place for she and her two sons to live. She filled out the form in a hurry and did not list her delinquent debts. She had no intent to falsify. She states that she is not a dishonest person and she "would never take away from the government or use any government materials to access myself further in life." (13)

Applicant's supervisor states that Applicant has worked for her since August 2001. She has performed above company expectations and is well liked by her associates. She is willing to take on extra projects. (14) Another co-worker has worked with Applicant for 10 years and has known her for 18 years. She describes Applicant as "a dedicated mother," "trustworthy," and "conscientious." (15) Another co-worker states that Applicant can be counted on to help anyone and is an all around honest person. (16)

POLICIES

The President has "the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position ... that will give that person access to such information." (17) The President provided that eligibility for access to classified information shall be granted only to United States citizens "whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information." (18)

To be eligible for assignment to sensitive duties, an applicant must meet the security guidelines contained in DoD 5200.2-R and DoDD 5220.6. "The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security." (19) The Regulation sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions under each guideline. (20) The adjudicative guidelines at issue in this case are: Financial Considerations - An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligation to protect classified or sensitive information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. Personal Conduct is a security concern when an individual's conduct involves questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. Criminal Conduct is a security concern because a history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Willingness to abide by rules is an essential qualification for eligibility for access to the nation's secrets and/or sensitive information. A history of illegal behavior indicates an individual may be inclined to break, disregard, or fail to comply with regulations, practices, or procedures concerning safeguarding and handling classified information. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions below. "The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance." (21) An administrative judge must apply the "whole person concept," and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable information about the person. (22) An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. (23)

DoD contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in DoD Directive 5220.6 before any final unfavorable access determination may be made. (24) Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. (25) Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. (26) An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance." (27) "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." (28)

A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the government. The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. (Exec. Ord. 10865, § 7.) It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for issuing a clearance.

CONCLUSION

I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. Financial Considerations Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 1 (A history of not meeting financial obligations); and FC DC 3 (Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply to Applicant's case. Applicant has a history of not meeting her financial obligations since 2000. A January 3, 2006, credit report listed 13 delinquent accounts with a total approximate balance of $60,076. The debts became delinquent between 2000 - 2003. I considered the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC). I conclude FC MC 3 (The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation)) applies. The majority of the delinquent debt arose from Applicant's ex-husband's failed trucking business. She separated from her husband in March 2004. They divorced in July 2005. In the final order of divorce, her ex-husband agreed to pay the debts that were related to his trucking company. This accounts for $57,4000 of the delinquent accounts. I cannot apply FC MC 4 (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control) since Applicant has not attended financial counseling. However, she has paid off the debts she is responsible for under the divorce decree. Since separating from her husband she has not incurred additional delinquent debt. Her ex-husband caused the financial problems. Although she struggles to provide for her two children, she is financially responsible. Her financial problems are under control. I conclude FC MC 6 (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. Applicant paid off the marital debts she was responsible for under the divorce decree. I find that she has acted in good-faith towards resolving her delinquent debts. She is capable of meeting her financial obligations. She denies the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m. I find that she has taken reasonable steps to resolve this account. The creditor could not verify that this was her account when she contacted them. I find for Applicant with regard to SOR ¶ 1.m. Applicant has mitigated the security concern under Guideline F. Guideline F is decided in her favor. Personal Conduct Personal conduct under Guideline E is always a security concern because it asks the central question if a person's past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified information. Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security clearance or in other official matters is a security concern. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully. In this case, the record evidence fails to establish Applicant deliberately omitted or concealed information about her delinquent debts. Although her answers to questions 22a and 22bwere incorrect, she successfully rebutted the allegations that she deliberately provided a false answer. I find credible her explanation that she had no intent to falsify her public trust application. Guideline E is decided for Applicant. Criminal Conduct I find for Applicant under Guideline J based on the same reasons stated under Guideline E. In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering the "whole person" concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts, omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. I have considered all the evidence and the "whole person" in evaluating Applicant's trustworthiness. I am persuaded by the totality of the evidence that she mitigated the trustworthiness concerns. It is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is granted.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant Paragraph 3. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of the evidence presented in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility is granted. Erin C. Hogan Administrative Judge 1. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960,as amended. 2. (In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant initially admitted SOR ¶ 2.a. Based her testimony during the hearing, I conclude that her intent was to deny this allegation.) 3. Gov Ex 1. 4. Tr. at 21, 27-28. 5. Tr. at 23. 6. Tr. at 24-25; Answer to SOR; AE C at 6-12. 7. Tr. at 25. 8. Tr. at 24. 9. Gov Ex 2. 10. Gov Ex 2, 3. 11. Tr. at 30-32; Answer to SOR, Final Order, dated July 22, 2205. 12. Answer to SOR. 13. Tr. at 15-16, 30. 14. AE C at 2. 15. AE A. 16. AE B. 17. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). 18. Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information, § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). 19. DoD 5200.2-R, ¶ C6.1.1.1. 20. Id. at Appendix 8. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id. 24. Id. at ¶ C8.2.1. 25. Directive , ¶ E3.1.14. 26. Id. at ¶ E3.1.15. 27. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 28. Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Richard A.Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM] 05-17712.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/05-17712.h1.html[7/2/2021 3:52:35 PM]