SECURITY CLEARANCE LAW - Representative Cases

THE FOLLOWING LIST OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), one allegation of indebtedness to the IRS, and one allegation of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, demonstrating a failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations. The Law Office of Greg D. McCormack, P.C., represented employee at an administrative hearing. Results: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Army/Federal Employee received a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for a security clearance and sensitive compartmented information access under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for five allegations of delinquent debts. The Law Office of Greg McCormack assisted the employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance and access granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline H (Drug Involvement), two allegations of using illegal drugs.  The Law Office of Greg D. McCormack represented employee at an administrative hearing.  Result:  successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Applicant submitted a security clearance application on August 19, 2006. On May 8, 2009 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its preliminary decision to deny his application, citing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement) and E (Personal Conduct). The Applicant received the SOR on May 18, 2009 and after retaining the Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack submitted his written response to the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. After review of the Applicant's response to the SOR, the concerns under guideline E were mitigated. At the hearing the administrative judge reviewed the Applicant's past drug use, his successful completion of treatment, his current employment records and performance evaluations, current living situation, current social activities and his letters of good character and determined that in light of all the circumstances it was clearly consistent with the national interest to continue the Applicant's eligibility for security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Army/O-3 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to deny a security clearance due to five allegations under Financial Considerations (Guideline F); four allegations under Criminal Conduct and Sexual Behavior (Guidelines D and J); and one allegation (failure to disclosure information) under Personal Conduct (Guideline E). The Law Office of Greg McCormack assisted the officer with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Air Force contractor employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) due to three allegations of Criminal Conduct (Guideline J); one allegation under Handling Protected Information Guideline K); two allegations (failure to disclosure information) under Personal Conduct (Guideline E); and four allegations under Alcohol Consumption (Guideline G). The Law Office of Greg McCormack assisted the employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – access granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Navy/O-6 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for six allegations of questionable/significant U.S. currency transactions from various banking institutions; and ten allegations of foreign travel, foreign contacts, and foreign investment. Attorney Greg McCormack assisted the naval officer with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Navy E-7 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of inappropriate use of government equipment, failure to obey regulations and undisclosed contact with a foreign national. With The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. representation a written response was submitted to the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DoNCAF) with supporting documentation. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance restored with caution by the DoNCAF without a personal appearance.

Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of illegal use of marijuana. With The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. representation at the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance we were able to show unknowing ingestion and no criminal conduct on the employees part, employee received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) with caution.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), three allegations of foreign contacts and interests which may have caused manipulation or inducement to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government, in a way that was not in the U.S. interests, or was vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest; and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), twenty-two allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Army E-8, issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), for allegations of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate member. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. assisted member with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), three allegations of foreign contacts and interests which may have caused manipulation or inducement to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government, in a way that was not in the U.S. interests, or was vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest; and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), twenty-two allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for theft of government property allegations. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. assisted employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Navy E-6 issued a letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) for allegations of past misconduct and failure to pay his just debts and failure to disclose the debts on his application. With The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. representation at the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance, military member received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: all concerns successfully mitigated - clearance granted by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB), member's previously withheld advancement was restored, and member was promoted to E-7.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations, by being indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at the administrative hearing and was able to show all debts had been satisfied and that client had been working with debt management company to pay all debts. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), six allegations of foreign contacts and interests which may have caused manipulation or inducement to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government, in a way that was not in the U.S. interests, or was vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at an administrative hearing. Result: successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for allegations of financial delinquencies. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. assisted employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

Department of the Army contracted employee's Security Clearance eligibility and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access held in abeyance by the Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (ACPSCF), pending resolution of a letter concern regarding allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. was retained to assist employee with his response to ACPSCF. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance and SCI access granted.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations, by being indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Guideline H (Drug Involvement), allegations of use of an illegal drug, by the use and purchase of marijuana, and court conviction for possession of marijuana; and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), allegations of conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, as a result of the allegations cited under Guideline H and Guideline F, above. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at the administrative hearing. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline F (Financial Considerations), allegations of failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations, by being indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Guideline H (Drug Involvement), allegations of use of an illegal drug, by the use and purchase of marijuana, and court conviction for possession of marijuana; and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), allegations of conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, as a result of the allegations cited under Guideline H and Guideline F, above. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at the administrative hearing. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline E (Personal Conduct), allegation of being sued in U.S.

District Court by former employer for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at the administrative hearing.  Result:  successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns; Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  Case decided for Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.  

Department of Defense notified contractor employee it was unable to grant employee access to classified information and recommended case be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination, based upon Guideline B (Foreign Influence), allegations of spouse and stepchild are citizens of Sudan; mother and father are citizens and residents of Sudan; brothers and sisters are citizens and residents of Sudan; and allegations of travel to Sudan.  The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. represented employee at the administrative hearing.  Result:  successfully mitigated all concerns - For Applicant - by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals Administrative Judge - clearance granted.

Department of Defense contractor employee previously denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), 16 allegations of past purchase and use of illegal drugs over a 7-year period. The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. retained to assist with employee's reapplication/reconsideration. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA).

Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of indecent exposure (3 counts). With The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. representation at the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance, employee received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB).

Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for an allegation of a positive random urinalysis test (marijuana). The Law Firm of Greg D. McCormack, P.C. assisted employee with the preparation and submission of response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).

THE FOLLOWING LIST OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.