RECENT FINANCIAL CASE VICTORIES

* * * * *

security clearance expertU.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (March 27, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a senior-level defense contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to nearly $1 million in delinquent mortgage loans from multiple investment properties. This was an extremely complicated case that involved mortgage deficiency laws, in rem judgments, and other highly technical legal procedures. Nonetheless, Bigley Ranish LLP Attorney Jeff Billett prepared an exhaustive defense that highlighted the client’s personal responsibility in the face of a dramatic market downturn and unforeseen (and costly) issues with her rental properties. As a result of our efforts, the government opted to withdraw the SOR in this case without the need for a hearing.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; SUITABILITY CASE (March 16, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contractor accused of being unfit for service based upon several delinquent debts. We prepared a written response to the allegations that provided voluminous mitigating information. We also highlighted a key nuance in federal civil service law: unlike in security clearance cases, 5 C.F.R. 731.202 has no provision for finding an applicant unsuitable for employment based solely upon debt. Rather, the regulation requires that debt be coupled with evidence of intentional dishonesty, which clearly did not exist in our case. As a result of our efforts, CBP reversed the unfavorable determination against our client within just 24 hours, allowing him to start work effective immediately.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (March 1, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of incurring delinquent debt in excess of $150,000, thereby raising questions about his fitness for access to classified information. Bigley Ranish, LLP Senior Counsel Lee Schachter prepared the client’s SOR response and Partner Jacob Ranish subsequently took over representation at the pre-hearing discovery stage. As a result of both attorneys’ combined efforts, we were successful in obtaining a withdrawal of the case pre-trial. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (February 21, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of failing to honor his just debts, thereby calling into question his willingness to comply with security rules and regulations. This was a heavily document-intensive case; allegations included over $100,000 in government benefit over-payments, as well as tax and identity theft issues spanning several years. In order to secure a victory, our team spent countless hours fighting for the client: Of Counsel Jeffrey Billett handled the SOR response and Senior Counsel Lee Schachter took on the hearing before a DOHA judge. The end result was an extraordinarily strong judge’s opinion that allowed our client to both retain his security clearance and his six figure income.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (February 6, 2017)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor charged with financial misconduct – specifically, failing to timely file income taxes for multiple years – under Guideline F. As it turned out, for nearly every year at issue the client received a substantial tax refund, thereby seriously undermining any concerns about the client’s ability and willingness to live within his means. We used this fact, combined with the client’s good-faith reason for filing late, to mitigate the government’s concerns. Further mitigation was established through the type of extensive and favorable whole-person analysis at which our attorneys excel. The result was that although the issues in this case were recent, we were successful in resolving them from a security perspective. Clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (January 12, 2017)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of failing to honor his just debts due to a mortgage foreclosure deficiency balance. Although deficiency cases are highly technical matters of law, our attorneys conducted extensive research and succeeded in establishing new precedent linking the public policy implications of a certain state’s Rules of Court to those established by a legislature under an anti-deficiency statute. The result was a resounding victory on summary judgment for our client. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (January 11, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of presenting security risk due to roughly $18,000 in delinquent debt. The majority of the debt was alleged to be the result of a state tax lien.

Upon a review of the case posture, it quickly became clear that the state tax lien had no basis in law; namely, the client had no income or other taxable nexus to the particular state during the time he was alleged to have accrued a tax bill. The state in question ultimately conceded to error and we worked with the client to obtain appropriate evidence of that for DoD. Finally, we guided the client through resolving two minor, legitimate debts of which he had been previously unaware. The result of our efforts was a strong SOR response that allowed for withdrawal of the case pre-hearing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (December 13, 2016)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to numerous delinquent debts and an outstanding Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The government argued that our client’s past financial difficulties placed him at a heightened risk for bribery or other criminal activity. In our defense, however, we established that the client’s debts had accrued under unusual circumstances that did not warrant an unfavorable inference about his character. We further argued that the Chapter 13 bankruptcy – with which our client had scrupulously complied for nearly a year – was a mitigating condition, not a disqualifying one. After an intense hearing, a judge ultimately agreed with our positions and issued a lengthy favorable decision for our client. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (December 7, 2016)

In this matter we represented a DoD contractor accused of incurring 11 delinquent debts totaling over $25,000. The government alleged that our client’s financial track record placed him at a heightened vulnerability to bribery and reflected negatively on his character.

We responded to the allegations by establishing that several of the alleged debts were duplicates and providing voluminous evidence regarding payment or settlement on the others. Importantly, we also presented a strong case for mitigation in light of the Client’s compelling personal story of hardship and parental abandonment as a teenager. Ultimately, we were successful in showing that our client’s debts were accrued under unique circumstances, that he has worked diligently to resolve them, and that his character is outstanding. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (October 12, 2016)

We were pleased to represent a hard-working DoD contractor accused of failing to honor his just debts because of a single unpaid deficiency judgment from a second mortgage. The client retained us for a response to the government’s “File of Relevant Material” (FORM), after submitting his SOR response without legal representation. Our attorneys quickly evaluated the client’s case, prepared a strong defense under applicable precedent, and responded to the FORM on the client’s behalf. So strong was our response, that the government opted to simply withdraw the case against our client just two (2) weeks later instead of sending it to a judge for decision. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (October 12, 2016)

We were privileged to represent a decorated war hero with traumatic brain injury. Despite the soldier’s selfless service to our country, the government expressed concerns regarding his security-worthiness due to a number of purportedly delinquent debts. A hearing was scheduled before a Department of Defense Administrative Judge. Then the client called us.

Using our extensive expertise in both applicable law and administrative procedure we worked with the client to establish a highly effective case for mitigation. We presented our case to the government and moved aggressively for withdrawal of the Statement of Reasons. As a result of our efforts, the government ultimately conceded that this case was not worth pursuing. The charges against our client were withdrawn and the hearing cancelled. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 29, 2016)

We were privileged to represent a combat-disabled veteran accused of being a security risk due to excessive unresolved debt. We worked extensively with the Client to obtain appropriate evidence of debt resolution – evidence that the client had been unaware was necessary at the time he prepared his response to the Statement of Reasons pro se (without legal representation). We then presented our case to the government with a persuasive argument for withdrawing the SOR. As a result of our efforts, we convinced the government to drop the case against our client just two weeks before a scheduled hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 7, 2016)

We represented in this matter a DoD contractor accused of failing to file his income tax returns for 2008, 2012, and 2013. The case was notable in that the client sought our assistance even before submitting his security clearance application (SF-86) a year ago. At that time, we evaluated the client’s circumstances, guided him on specific steps he could take to improve his chances of success, and helped him proactively establish a defense. Later, when a Statement of Reasons was issued, we were able to highlight the steps the client had taken to resolve his situation, based on our guidance, to win the case quickly and cost-effectively. The SOR was withdrawn by the government without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 2, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor alleged to have $70,000 in delinquent student loan debt – thereby purportedly placing him at risk of financial coercion by hostile foreign agents. In reality, the client’s student loan debt had been in good standing for quite some time, but he had failed to adequately support his claims with evidence. We assisted the client in obtaining the evidence necessary to satisfy the government. We then prepared a compelling Statement of Reasons (SOR) response that highlighted the reasons why the client previously had financial problems and why they would not reoccur. Ultimately, the government agreed that no security risk was present and opted to withdraw the SOR without the need for a hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (July 26, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor charged with excessive unresolved debt (over $100,000) under Guideline “F”. We prepared a strong response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) that mitigated both the substantive reason for the debt, as well as the client’s efforts in addressing it. Combined with a favorable whole person assessment, the government found in our client’s favor and opted to withdraw the SOR without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (July 26, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor fighting allegations of excessive unresolved debt (over $50,000) under Guideline “F”. At a hearing before a DOHA judge we presented a strong case for mitigation – namely, documentation of the clients efforts in resolving his debts; documentation of their reasonable and legitimate source; and, extensive and favorable whole person evidence. The DOHA judge ultimately ruled in our client’s favor, allowing him to retain both his clearance and his career of 20+ years.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (July 18, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a decorated war hero whose exploits were chronicled in numerous books and movies. Unfortunately, after ending his military career our client fell on hard times financially due to a series of circumstances outside his control. The government alleged that the client’s numerous delinquent debts were a security risk in light of the client’s new position with a defense contractor.

We worked extensively with the client to obtain adequate evidence of debt resolution. We guided the applicant through obtaining additional relevant evidence and prepared the applicant to testify before a judge. After a hearing, a DOHA Judge ultimately concluded that the client had mitigated all security concerns even though he was still making payments on numerous debts. The client’s security clearance was granted and he was able to maintain his job.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; GUIDELINE “F” (June 29, 2016)

Our client in this matter was an employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services accused of accruing thousands of dollars in unresolved debt and of having a non-discharged bankruptcy underway. The totality of the allegations called into question the employee’s fitness for a security clearance on several grounds.

We prepared a strong written appeal package for the client that addressed numerous mitigating factors and highlighted the great lengths to which the client had gone to resolve her situation. Ultimately, the agency agreed with our conclusion that no security risk existed. The client’s clearance was reinstated based solely on our response to the Statement of Reasons.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (June 24, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of accruing thousands of dollars in delinquent debts and failing to file her taxes on time for several years, resulting in wage garnishments. We worked extensively with the client to obtain appropriate documentary evidence of her debt resolution efforts. We also prepared a strong case for mitigation, highlighting the extent to which the client’s abusive ex-husband was responsible for the debts. After an adversarial hearing with government counsel, a DOHA Judge ultimately ruled in our client’s favor on all counts. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (June 8, 2016)

We were privileged to represent a DoD contractor and Iraq war veteran with a 60% combat-related disability rating. The veteran had accrued numerous delinquent debts, including a bankruptcy, and the government expressed concerns that those debts may heighten his vulnerability to espionage. Over the course of nearly two (2) years, we worked with the Client to respond to a Statement of Reasons, deal with a loss of jurisdiction that arose, and subsequently present the case to a DoD Administrative Judge for a decision on the written record. As a result of our efforts, the Judge found in our client’s favor on all allegations. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (June 1, 2016)

In this matter we represented a DoD contractor accused of excessive delinquent indebtedness. We prepared a strong response to the SOR that highlighted the nature of the debt (a deficiency balance following a short sale), the reason for its accrual (a sudden business downturn as a result of the bad economy), and the client’s extensive efforts to resolve his situation. After reviewing the clients documentation, it became clear that the client was not legally responsible for the deficiency balance. These facts, combined with our extensive “whole person” mitigation efforts, proved sufficient to satisfy all the government’s concerns. The SOR was withdrawn without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (May 31, 2016)

Our client in this case was a DoD contractor accused of incurring a significant amount of delinquent credit card debt, as well as numerous unpaid parking tickets. Once again, we worked extensively with the client to obtain documentation sufficient to vitiate security concerns. After completing the SOR response and a hearing, a DOHA judge ruled in our client’s favor and fully restored his security clearance.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (May 31, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of accruing two large delinquent debts from a time-share forfeiture. Using our knowledge of the tax code and case law, we obtained evidence sufficient to show that the client was no longer legally responsible for the debts. We also prepared evidence to show that these debts were anomalies in an otherwise strong track record of financial stability. As a result of pre-trial negotiations, we succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of all allegations and withdrawal of the SOR. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (May 31, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of incurring numerous delinquent consumer debts, as well as a delinquent state tax debt. The client prepared his own SOR response but retained us to represent him in a hearing before a DOHA judge. We worked with the client extensively to obtain the evidence necessary to prove he has acted responsibly in complying with his financial obligations. Ultimately, the judge was persuaded by our efforts. The client’s security clearance was fully restored.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (May 27, 2016)

Our client, a DoD contractor, was accused of a litany of financial issues, including a bankruptcy discharge of $500,000, a foreclosure, and $60,000 in unresolved consumer debt. Although this was a challenging and document-intensive case, we prevailed by spending countless hours working with the client to establish mitigation, obtain corroborating evidence, and show both that the client’s debts arose from circumstances beyond her control and that they have been responsibly addressed. After a lengthy hearing, a DOHA Judge agreed that mitigation had been established and our client’s clearance was reinstated.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (May 10, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of accruing numerous delinquent debts that she failed to adequately address. We worked with the client extensively to obtain adequate documentation of debt resolution plus mitigation from a “whole person” perspective. Ultimately, we were able to convince a judge that the client acted reasonably in light of her circumstances. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “E” and “F” (May 10, 2016)

We represented a DoD overseas contractor accused with filing a bankruptcy that he failed to report on his SF-86, as well as accruing a litany of subsequent delinquent debts. This was a truly bizarre case that required us to explore the little-known world of bankruptcy fraud. What we discovered after extensive investigation was that the client’s ex-wife had – unbeknownst to the client – illegally filed a joint bankruptcy after their divorce as a way to delay foreclosure on her home. The subsequent debts were also the result of identity theft perpetrated by the ex-wife.

In a very paperwork-intensive process, we obtained corroborating evidence that ultimately resulted in the client’s vindication on all counts by a judge. We involved a bankruptcy attorney for assistance in expunging the bankruptcy and we referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for potential prosecution of the ex-wife. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “F” and “G” (April 27, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a decorated veteran and federal civilian employee accused of accruing a large amount of delinquent debt that he then failed to report on his SF-86. The client was also charged under the Alcohol Guideline with incurring a DUI while posted at an overseas military base.

We quickly disposed of the alcohol concerns by presenting evidence that the client’s arrest was an honest mistake – not evidence of alcohol dependence or abuse. We then mounted a strong case that the debts at issue were incurred by the client’s ex-wife after their date of separation. Using community property law from the client’s home state, we were able to show both that the client had no legal responsibility for the debts and that he wouldn’t have known about them prior to completing his SF-86. Our client summed up the results this way:

“Thank you so much sir for all your support in wining this fight!!! Without your help I am sure I would probably be asking ‘would you like that super-sized?’ right now. And you can surely quote me on that!!”

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “F” and “E” (March 28, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of accruing $55,000 in delinquent debt and intentionally omitting that debt from his SF-86 signed under penalty of perjury. We aggressively attacked the purported dishonesty using the government’s own evidence. We then used several other litigation-tested strategies to prove both that the debt was accrued for reasons outside our client’s control and that he had fully resolved it within the meaning of the law. The result was a swift and resounding victory for our client. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (March 9, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor charged with significant unresolved debt. Despite allegations that our client’s financial track record posed a security risk, we successfully proved that all delinquent accounts have been resolved and that the circumstances surrounding the delinquencies were not indicative of either a current security risk or a reckless disregard for rules and regulations. Our client was able to retain her security clearance and her six figure job as a result.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (February 4, 2016)

Our client – a DoD civilian employee and single mother – was charged with being a security risk under Guideline “F” due to $15,000 in delinquent consumer debt. We prepared a strong response to the allegations that highlighted the “whole person” factor, as well as our client’s extensive efforts to resolve her debts. As a result, DoD CAF found that the debts were sufficiently mitigated. Our client’s clearance was reinstated solely upon the SOR response.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (January 27, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of having significant unresolved debt from a mortgage foreclosure and student loans. The client was in a desperate situation: he had moved across country for a job only to learn that his employer planned to terminate him if his clearance situation was not resolved within 30 days. We counseled the client on exactly what documentation we needed for success and were able to fast-track his case to a favorable resolution in just two (2) weeks. The SOR was withdrawn by the government after we proved all debts were legally resolved. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (January 15, 2016)

Our client in this matter – a decorated U.S. Airman – was accused of financial instability under Guideline “F”. Specifically, the government alleged that the Client’s $58,000 in delinquent student loans made her vulnerable to bribery or espionage.

We mounted an aggressive defense which identified numerous mitigating factors and proved that the client’s financial situation is now well under control. As a result, the Statement of Reasons was withdrawn by the government without the need for a hearing. Clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (January 11, 2016)

We represented a Department of Defense contractor charged under Guideline “F” with roughly $32,000 in delinquent debt. Through extensive research and preparation, we were able to successfully mitigate 3 judgments against the client and all 15 collections accounts. This resulted in a judge’s determination that the client’s finances were under control and presented no risk to national security. Security clearance retained. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (November 3, 2015)

In this matter, we represented a Department of Defense contractor accused of accruing eight (8) delinquent debts totaling $40,000. We prepared a document-intensive case that evidenced the applicant’s clear track record of resolving the debts. We also obtained strong character evidence for the applicant and highlighted key facts that contradicted the government’s case. The result was that the government opted to withdraw the Statement of Reasons and grant the client’s security clearance before trial.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; SUITABILITY CASE (October 23, 2015)

We represented a U.S. Customs and Border Protection employee facing a proposed suitability denial under 5 C.F.R. 731. The employee was accused of lying in legal documents and of accruing multiple unresolved debts. Yet with just a written rebuttal, we proved that the circumstances surrounding the false statement negated intent, and that the debts were both reasonable and resolved. Proposed suitability denial withdrawn.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (October 14, 2015)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor accused of financial irresponsibility under Guideline “F.” Specifically, the client was alleged to have accrued roughly $95,000 in delinquent consumer debt.

In a stunning victory, we proved that the largest debt — $76,000 — was erroneous information due to a clerical error. The creditor conceded and removed the item from the client’s credit report. At trial, we then proved that the client’s remaining debts had been resolved and that they were accrued initially due to circumstances that did not present a security risk.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “E” and “F” (October 8, 2015)

Our client, a DoD contractor of 25 years, was charged under Guidelines “E” and “F” for allegedly accruing $58,000 in delinquent debt then lying about it during his background investigation. Based upon our expertly-crafted Statement of Reasons (SOR) response, the government conceded that the debt had been mitigated and that the dishonesty allegation was baseless. SOR withdrawn before trial and clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (October 6, 2015)

Our client, a U.S. Airman, was charged under Guideline “F” with financial misconduct and compulsive gambling that allegedly rendered the Airman a security risk. We mounted an aggressive defense which highlighted the extent to which the Air Force itself caused the Airman’s financial difficulties due to repeated miscalculations of the Airman’s allowances. The compulsive gambling allegations quickly crumbled when factual inaccuracies in the government investigator’s own report were attacked. All charges dismissed and clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (October 5, 2015)

The client in this case was a Department of Defense contractor accused of accruing a litany of unresolved debts. We spent significant time working with the client to lay a strong foundation addressing relevant legal and factual matters. We attacked both the underlying debts and the broader allegations of financial misconduct. The result was that DoD counsel opted to withdraw all allegations against the client 48 hours before the scheduled hearing. Clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 30, 2015)

Our client in this matter – formerly a very high ranking military commander – was accused of financial irresponsibility under Guideline “F”. Specifically, the government alleged $65,000 of delinquent student loans as evidence that the client could no longer be trusted with access to classified information.

In a hearing on the written record, we presented a unique defense that capitalized on the circumstances surrounding the co-signed loans and highlighted both two (2) years of satisfactory payment plan compliance and the applicant’s broader financial record. Clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 18, 2015)

We represented a DoD Contractor accused of failing to file federal income taxes for four (4) years and accruing delinquent debt. We spent dozens of hours preparing our case and the hard work paid off: At trial, we proved that the debts and been resolved and that sufficient mitigating circumstances existed with respect to the taxes. The judge wrote a lengthy opinion that specifically highlighted many of the actions we had instructed the client to take prior to the hearing. Clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (September 10, 2015)

Our client, a military aviator, was accused of financial issues under Guideline “F.” The client had been previously represented in his SOR response by another security clearance attorney who blew the deadline and then seemingly attempted to cover it up. Having lost all confidence in his prior attorney, the client turned to us.

Using our expert knowledge of the security clearance process, we successfully intervened at a high level, had the default rescinded, and assisted the client with having his clearance restored in a matter of weeks.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; GUIDELINES “F” and “E” (August 28, 2015)

We represented an ICE Special Agent accused of a litany of issues, including major financial debt and falsifying his SF-86 form. With only 48 hours to prepare for a formal hearing, a strong case was put together that proved the financial issues were a combination of identity theft, illegal debt under state law, and debts which the VA was legally responsible for under federal law. The alleged falsification was disproved through a combination of both a technical defense on the law and a factual defense based on the Agent’s own compelling testimony. Clearance (and career) retained.

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; GUIDELINE “F” (June 17, 2015)

Our client was accused by the government of allegedly failing to file tax returns for several years. We prepared a highly effective written response that proved the government’s information was partially inaccurate and wholly lacking crucial context. As a result, the Statement of Reasons was withdrawn before trial.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “F” (April 29, 2015)

We were privileged to represent a true American hero in this case: an Iraq War Veteran who earned a Purple Heart for his extensive battlefield injuries. The veteran got behind on his bills while recovering in the hospital, causing fallout on his security clearance. But using the veteran’s compelling personal story and applicable federal law, we convinced the government to actually withdraw the Statement of Reasons before adjudication.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “E” AND “F” (March 17, 2015)

The government accused a DOD contractor of declaring bankruptcy and intentionally timing the bankruptcy so as to avoid reporting it during a scheduled re-investigation. Despite extensive government efforts to tarnish our client’s reputation, we prevailed on the evidence and got this parent of two children / sole income-earner promptly back to work.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” AND “F” (February 9, 2015)

A DOD employee was accused of accumulating $42,000 in unresolved debt and of having numerous relatives living in a hostile foreign country. We were able to prove that the employee had taken responsible actions to address his debts. We also proved that the employee’s relatives were not a security risk. The employee’s security clearance was restored.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; GUIDELINES “E” AND “F” (February 9, 2015)

Our client, an HHS employee, was alleged to be over $16,000 in debt and was accused of knowingly withholding that information from the government during a background investigation. Through a combination of both legal and factual arguments, we were able to prove that the employee only owed $45 of the total alleged debt. The employee paid the $45 debt and promptly received a favorable suitability determination, thereby saving a career.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: GUIDELINE “F” (February 1, 2015)

We were pleased to represent to a DoD contractor erroneously accused by the government of being behind on student loan payments, his mortgage, and numerous other debts by approximately $30,000. Through a combination of legal research, factual investigation, and strong “whole person factor” analysis, we proved that the client was, in fact, no longer delinquent on his payments and that the client acted responsibly in confronting circumstances beyond his control.

*Each case is unique. Representations of past success are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of future results. Cases involving multiple guidelines are reported under each guideline.