Recent Victories

February 3, 2012

“Vanessa, Thank you very much for all the help, you have helped me a lot! Thanks.”

 -Applicant, Scott Air Force Base

 

January 23, 2012

"I would like to report that my clearance was reinstated! Thank you for all your help, I appreciate everything. I couldn't have done it without you...thanks again and have a great day!"

-Applicant (O'Fallon, IL) 

December 12, 2011

"Mr. Edmunds,

Thanks for following up with my case. WHS has rendered a favorable determination on my investigation and I appreciate all the legal services your firm had provided.

Sincerly,

-Applicant"

 

December 9, 2011

 “Ms McKinnon,

My security clearance was reinstated in July. Thank you for your services. 

 Respectfully,

 -Applicant (Rosamond, CA)”

 

December 9, 2011

 “Good Morning,

 I would like start off by saying thank you. My security clearance was reinstated back in February 2011.

 I appreciate everyone efforts and I will recommend your firm to any friends that may need your services.

 Thanks,

 -Applicant (Woodbridge, VA)”

 

November 2, 2011

Thank you for your effort. It was my pleasure working with you. I will definitely recommend you to my friends.

-Applicant (Virginia)

---

October 24, 2011

I received word today that my SCI clearance was reinstated by AFCAF.  As you can see below, the security manager claims this is the fastest eligibility update he's ever seen.  I thank you both and other members of the Edmund's law firm who worked on my response.  You are consummate professionals who know how to get the job done.

-Applicant (California)

---

October 18, 2011

Thanks for all the awesome work! From the start, when Mr. Edmunds called, I felt like I won the moment I spoke with him. To the attorneys and paralegals, bless you! Much gratitude!

-Applicant (Virginia)

---

October 12, 2011

I would like to extend to you my gratitude and humble thanks for what your firm did for me during my Administrative hearing, which specifically dealt with my security clearance. Your expertise, attention to detail, professionalism and personal touch was demonstrated during the entire process. Your staff exemplified a behavior of excellence that was above reproach.  I can say without a doubt your experience, knowledge and zeal to be successful, goes beyond any other firm working with security clearances. My family will forever be grateful.

-Applicant (Alabama)

---

September 23, 2011

Hello,

I spoke with my company's security personnel today. They informed me that, from everything they have access to, my clearance has been restored. I have my Top Secret clearance back and I can regain the SCI portion if required. So, I guess before I close this email I will give you my heart-felt thanks for your help in this matter. Once again, thank you!

–Applicant (Japan)

---

September 13, 2011

I am really happy to receive this approval email, which we were waiting for a long time. I am thankful to you for your hard work and a big thank to the attorney who had managed the case, which shows his expertise. I am also thankful to the Edmunds Law Firm for having knowledgeable staff. Thanks again.

–Applicant (Naperville, IL)

---

Just a big 'Thank You' for your hard work in handling my case. I am back at work and things are like normal.

–Applicant (Birmingham, AL)

---

I would really like to thank you and Mr. Edmunds for such a great service. I was super impressed with the way Mr. Edmunds handled the trial. You guys guided me along all the whole way...There was no way I think I would have been able to get through this without the Edmunds Law Firm. This is the first time I have ever had to get a lawyer for anything, and my first time was a great experience. I will be sure to recommend you to anyone I know needing legal services. Once again thank you for all your support and hard work.

–Applicant (South Carolina)

---

Many thanks to all of you, though this decision is not a promise of fame and fortune, it goes a very long way to lessen the burdens of everyday life, especially at this time of my life. Again my thanks and enjoy your day!

–Applicant (Fort Washington, MD)

---

Your direct help and all of your team have greatly helped me through the SOR response process. I appreciate the services your office has provided and thank you all for assisting in this tough time. I am thankful to have found your office and having your representation. Please send a good word to all in your office for making a difference in a person's career and family's income and future retirement. I will definitely refer your services to my fellow AF members in the future. Thanks again.

–Applicant (Las Vegas, NV)

---

I wish to thank you for your support and expertise in my defense. I pray I will never again need your services however, I won't hesitate to recommend your firm to anyone I know in need of your services. Again, thank you. It feels good to be back to work.

–Applicant (Kingsland, GA)

---

Please pass to everyone in your firm my deepest appreciation for an excellent job on my behalf....but my hearing today was an Edmunds Tour de Force. Mr. Edmunds is truly a gifted attorney and advocate. Win or lose, I don't feel I could have been better represented by anyone else today more than by Mr. Edmunds. He was eloquent in his presentation of the evidence and inspired in his counter arguments to the Government's case. Thank you so much Mr. Edmunds; you're a superb attorney.

–Applicant (San Diego, CA)

---

Thank you and your associates for all your legal advice and services throughout my challenges with DOHA and my efforts to obtain a security clearance. During the hearing…I could not have asked for a better attorney to present my case to [the] Judge…Your legal approach was strong, well prepared, and most professional…Please extend my gratitude to all members of your team. Thank you for a job well done.

–Applicant (Santee, CA)

---

I have received a favorable decision regarding my security clearance. Thank you all for everything! I will be sure to recommend your law firm to all that face security clearance issues.

–Applicant (Cairo, Egypt)

---

Thank you very much. I am extremely happy on the decision and do not feel I could have put together an appeal letter on my own. It's been a please to have worked with you and the rest of the team.

–Applicant (Eldersburg, MD)

---

I received an email from the company security officer stating that the final security clearance has granted to me yesterday...Thank you from all my heart for the great assistance I had from you. Frankly without you my fight with them would have been so hard. Some people like me, who have never met a judge, indeed need an expert like you. I was so lucky to know such a wonderful person as you. I know that you are very well known lawyer but also I will do my best to let other people know you. When I left the court...I was shocked by your final extraordinary statement. Frankly, you were AWSOME. Thank you again.

–Applicant (Stearling Heights, MI)

---

Wow. Alan, I couldn't have done this without your expertise. I am deeply indebted to you and your firm...thank you so much!

–Applicant (Gilroy, CA)

---

Just wanted you to know how pleased my son and I were in choosing your law firm. Your staff was always professional, efficient and a pleasure to work with. You have our patronage and thank you again.

–Applicant (North Arlington, NJ)

---

Thank you for all the hard work you put into regaining my clearance. You have been an invaluable asset during my 2010 year....Again, thank you for all the invaluable assistance.

–Applicant (Augusta, GA)

---

I would like to thank you very much for all the help and support you have provided for me for this case. I truly appreciate all the work that has been done on my behalf for this favorable decision. Thank you again.

–Applicant (San Diego, CA)

---

You made my day. This is the best to hear in 2010. I'm so happy and proud to have your law firm to represent me in my case. I for sure will recommend this firm to all people need such help. Again, thank you so much for all you did for me.

–Applicant (San Diego, CA)

---

I'm following up on my case. I was granted a Security Clearance in November and am now working in Afghanistan...Thank you so much for all of your help. I truly appreciate everything.

–Applicant (San Diego, CA)

---

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your tireless advocacy on my behalf. You have provided me with excellent representation for me from the outset of this drawn-out process, and its ultimately successful outcome is unquestionably linked with your commitment to your clients.

–Applicant (Berkeley, CA)

---

Security Clearance Victories and Press Releases

 

Personal & Criminal Conduct Decision Reversed                       The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision on February 3, 2012. The Applicant’s clearance was revoked after the Government discovered multiple traffic citations from several different states on the Applicants record which he failed to disclose. As a result, his clearance was removed and he was issued an SOR. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the SOR on behalf of the applicant. Within the response the firm laid out numerous mitigating factors along with several exhibits in support of the response. The Edmunds Law Firm succeeded in mitigating all of the Government’s concerns and the Applicant’s clearance was reinstated without the need for a hearing.

Clearance Granted, No Hearing NecessaryOn February 3, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision. The Applicant in this case was issued an SOR with several allegations of Drug Involvement, Criminal Conduct, Personal Conduct and Alcohol Consumption. The Applicant failed to disclose incidents from his teenage years and charges against him that had been dropped. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the Government’s allegations on behalf of the Applicant. In the response, the firm addressed each allegation, stating that they were far in the Applicant’s past and were unlikely to ever happen again. The firm submitted multiple exhibits in support of the response and was able to mitigate the Government’s concerns. The Applicant’s clearance was granted.

Psychological Conditions Favorable Decision

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision on February 2, 2012. The Applicant in this matter had his clearance revoked due to allegations of Psychological Conditions. The Applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder which created security concerns for the Government. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a hearing before an Administrative Judge in June, 2011. At the hearing the Edmunds Law Firm submitted several exhibits and provided oral argument on behalf of the applicant. The firm was able to fully mitigate the Government’s concerns and the Applicant’s clearance was reinstated.

Foreign Influence Favorable Decision

On January 25, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline B-Foreign Influence and Guideline J-Criminal Conduct. The Applicant had allegedly came into the United States illegally and obtained a fake social security number. He also had let him family members who are not citizens of the U.S. use his mailing address and stay at his home on several occasions. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to successfully defend the Applicant in a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The firm presented several mitigating factors including naturalized citizenship and the length of time that had passed since his entry into the U.S. The Applicant’s request for his clearance to be reinstated was granted.

 Guidelines F & E Favorable Decision 

On January 23, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations and Guideline E-Personal Conduct. The Applicant failed to disclose details of a DUI he was charged with during security processing. He also had several large debts listed on his credit report which created concern for the Government in terms of his trustworthiness. the government revoked his clearance and issued an SOR. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the SOR on behalf of the applicant in which the Firm was able to fully mitigate all of the Government’s concerns. The Applicant’s clearance was quickly reinstated.

Drug Involvement Favorable Decision

On January 19, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline H-Drug Involvement, and Guideline J-Criminal Conduct. The Applicant received a statement of reasons alleging that he used marijuana several times. Because of this alleged drug use, the Government became concerned that the Applicant had poor judgment and was not trustworthy. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a formal hearing at which the Firm presented exhibits and provided oral argument on behalf of the applicant. The Firm was able to mitigate the Government’s concerns by proving that the Applicant was in fact trustworthy and reliable because the behavior was so infrequent, happened so long ago and would not ever happen again. The original decision to revoke the Applicant’s clearance was overturned.

Favorable Decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations

 On January 9, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations. The Applicant’s security clearance was revoked and he was issued an SOR. The Government expressed concerns that the Applicant was no longer reliable and trustworthy, as he allegedly had three delinquencies on his credit report totally nearly $60,000.00. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the Government on behalf of the applicant and also represented him in a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in mitigating the Government’s concerns through exhibits submitted and oral argument on behalf of the Applicant. The original decision to revoke his clearance was overturned.

Favorable Guideline J and Guideline D Decision

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision on December 29, 2011. The Applicant’s clearance was revoked due to security concerns under Guideline J- Criminal Conduct and Guideline D-Sexual Behavior. During a polygraph exam conducted by the Government, the applicant admitted to viewing child pornography on multiple occasions. This created security concerns for the Government resulting in revocation of clearance and issuance of an SOR. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the SOR and represented the Applicant in a hearing before an Administrative Judge. Through the exhibits submitted to the Government and oral argument on behalf of the Applicant, the Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the Government’s concerns and the original decision was overturned.

Clearance Granted Despite Allegations of Criminal Conduct

On December 27, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a recent victory. An applicant who was facing allegations of falsely filling out time sheets for his job and illegally downloading music and movies off the internet while at work had his security clearance revoked. His clearance, however, was reinstated shortly after retaining the Edmunds Law Firm for legal services. The applicant was issued an SOR which the firm responded to on behalf of said applicant. The written response to the Government mitigated all of their security concerns and the applicant’s clearance was reinstated without the need for a formal hearing.

 Foreign Influence Decision Overturned

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a recent victory on December 16, 2011. The case involved a revocation of clearance based on Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference Guidelines. The applicant was originally from Israel and his family members were all residents of Israel. The applicant had traveled to Israel several times within a short time span and had been using an Israeli passport even though he was a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the applicant in a formal hearing where several witnesses gave testimony and oral argument on behalf of the applicant was heard. The Edmunds Law Firm was successful in mitigating all of the government’s security concerns and clearance was reinstated.

Guideline E and H Decision Overturned

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice that an applicant who was originally denied clearance had the decision reversed on December 13, 2011. The Government had originally revoked the applicant’s clearance under Guideline E for Personal Conduct and Guideline H for Drug Involvement. After receiving a written response to the SOR and the case being heard in front of an Administrative Judge in June of 2010, the Government decided that the applicant had not successfully mitigated all of the Government’s security concerns and the decision was upheld to revoke his clearance. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a Request for Reapplication on behalf of the applicant in which the Firm explained how the applicant had made all the necessary changes to mitigate the Governments concerns.  Upon review of the Request, the Government reversed their original decision and clearance was granted.

Guideline I Favorable Decision

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision on December 9, 2011 under Guideline I for Psychological Conditions. The applicant was ordered to serve in the Middle East and in preparation he had received the Anthrax vaccine. The applicant suffered an adverse reaction which resulted in schizophrenia. The government had never received any details about the applicants condition accept that he in fact had a form of psychosis. The Edmunds Law Firm drafted a response to the Government outlining the applicant’s condition, treatment and willingness to comply with the Government’s requests. Upon review of this response, the applicant’s clearance was reinstated.

Clearance Granted Despite Judgments Entered Against Applicant:

On December 9, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice that a client’s security clearance was reinstated. The Government revoked his clearance and issued him a Statement of Reasons highlighting their concerns. The decision to revoke his clearance was due to the fact that his credit report reflected two judgments entered against him. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response on behalf of the applicant. The Firm was able to mitigate the Government’s security concerns through the response and the applicant’s clearance was reinstated without have to go to a formal hearing.

Guideline E Favorable Decision                                         On November 23, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The firm prepared and submitted a written response to the Department of Defense on behalf of the Applicant. The Government had concerns regarding Applicant’s security clearance due to his alleged use of illegal substances after he was granted a clearance. The Edmunds Law Firm successfully mitigated these concerns under guideline E and the Applicant was granted his security clearance without having to go to a formal hearing.

CRIMINAL CONDUCT DECISION OVERTURNED

On November 17, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the National Security Agency on behalf of the Applicant. The firm was successful in mitigating the security concerns under Guideline J: Criminal Conduct, Guideline F: Financial Considerations and Guideline E: Personal Conduct, without the need for a hearing. The allegations against the Applicant pertained to $100,000 worth of stolen equipment from his former employer and failing to claim up to $10,000 worth of purchases on his state income taxes. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a letter of appeal and supporting documentation to prove the Applicant had taken actions to rectify and mitigate those behaviors which resulted in the original denial decision. The firm prevailed and the Applicant was found eligible to maintain his security clearance.

 Financial Considerations Guideline Decision                                     On November 10, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Government alleged concerns under Guideline F-Financial Concerns and issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant that presented eight separate allegations of financial indebtedness. The bulk of the Applicant’s debts were student loans. The case was heard on September 14, 2011 by a DOHA Administrative Judge and the Edmunds Law Firm was successful in mitigating all concerns alleged by the Government in this case. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to prove that the Applicant’s financial debts were largely out of his control and he had been making good-faith attempts to pay off his debts. After examining documentary exhibits, witness testimonies, and oral argument, the Administrative Judge granted the Applicant’s security clearance.

 

GUIDELINE H AND G DECISION

On November 10, 2011, the Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Applicant is an employee of a Defense Contractor and was denied his security clearance under Guidelines H and G for drug and alcohol issues.  The drug and alcohol concerns related to the use of Marijuana and an alcohol-related assault and battery charge. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the Department of Defense on behalf of the Applicant.  The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on September 15, 2011. Based on the review of pleadings, submission of supporting documents, witness testimony, and oral argument on behalf of the Applicant, the  DOHA Administrative Judge determined that the Applicant had met his burden of proof and granted him a security clearance.

GUIDELINE B, D AND E DECISION

On November 7, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge on October 19, 2010. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline B: Foreign Influence, Guideline D: Sexual Behavior and Guideline E: Personal Conduct. The government alleged the Applicant’s interactions and relationship with Lebanese military officers, misconduct relative to alcohol consumption, and sexual behavior were a concern to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument, documentary evidence and provided witness testimony to prove the Applicant to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant’s security clearance.

REAPPLICATION GRANTED

On November 1, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals on behalf of the Applicant. The firm was successful in mitigating the security concerns under Guideline F: Financial Considerations and Guideline E: Personal Conduct, without the need for a hearing. The allegations against the Applicant pertained to over $60,000 in unpaid debt, numerous lines of open credit and falsified material provided on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument – citing past case law – and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant had no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress. The firm prevailed and the Applicant was found eligible for reapplication for a security clearance.

DRUG INVOLVEMENT GUIDELINE

On November 7, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 in Yuma, AZ. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Guideline E: Personal Conduct. The government alleged the Applicant’s past use of methamphetamines – including a positive drug screening and arrest for Possession of a Controlled Substance – were a concern to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant’s security clearance. 

GUIDELINE G DECISION GRANTED

On November 7, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals on Friday, March 11, 2011 in Santa Barbara, CA. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption. The government alleged the Applicant was ineligible for clearance because he used intoxicants to excess and had four alcohol-related arrests. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant as trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the testimonies given on the Applicant’s behalf, his willingness to stop drinking, additional evidence presented and oral argument, the government found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant’s security clearance.

WEST BANK, ISRAEL FOREIGN INFLUENCE CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals notified The Edmunds Law Firm of a favorable decision on November 1, 2011. After reviewing the information provided by The Edmunds Law Firm during the Applicant’s appeal, as well as all information that led to the original security decision, the government has overturned the original denial. The Applicant was previously denied based on Foreign Influence. The government rated the Applicant a high risk because of her close ties with family members who reside in Palestine, West Bank, Israel and Saudi Arabia; and who are citizens of Jordan. With the help of The Edmunds Law Firm, the Applicant renounced her Jordanian citizenship and was able to prove she was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security at a hearing on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 in Arlington, VA.

REAPPLICATION GRANTED AFTER PREVIOUS DENIAL

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals notified The Edmunds Law Firm that an Applicant’s request for reapplication was granted on October 26, 2011. After reviewing the information provided by The Edmunds Law Firm in the Applicant’s written response, as well as all documentary evidence and favorable recommendations, the agency decided to overturn the original 2010 denial. The Applicant was previously denied based on Guideline F: Financial Considerations. In 2010, DOHA first raised concerns under Guideline F due to ten delinquent accounts, totaling more than $18,000.00. Although the Applicant attempted to mitigate concerns through written response, a formal hearing and an appeal, the decision to deny the clearance remained. In September 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm was able to prove the Applicant to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security through written response alone. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals granted the Applicant’s request for reapplication in October 2011.

CLEARANCE GRANTED IN GUIDELINE J MATTER

The Department of the Air Force notified The Edmunds Law Firm of a favorable decision on October 20, 2011. After reviewing the information provided by The Edmunds Law Firm in the Applicant’s written response, as well as all documentary evidence and favorable recommendations, the agency decided to overturn the original denial. The Applicant was previously denied based on Guideline D: Sexual Behavior and Guideline J: Criminal Conduct. A past false accusation of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 14-years old gave rise to these Guidelines. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to prove the Applicant to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security without the need for a hearing. The Department of the Air Force reinstated the Applicant’s security clearance without delay.

DEPARTMENT OF ARMY & PR NATIONAL GUARD

The Department of the Army and the Puerto Rico National Guard notified The Edmunds Law Firm of a favorable decision on September 20, 2011. After reviewing the information provided by The Edmunds Law Firm in the Applicant's written response, as well as all documentary evidence and favorable recommendations, the agencies have overturned the original denial. The Applicant was previously denied based on Guideline F – Financial Considerations. His financial delinquencies included several student loans and unpaid phone bills. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to prove the Applicant to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security without the need for a hearing. Both the Department of the Army and Puerto Rico National Guard granted a Secret security clearance to the Applicant.

FOREIGN PREFERENCE & INFLUENCE

The Senior Adjudication Officer notified The Edmunds Law Firm of a favorable decision on September 26, 2011. After reviewing the information provided by The Edmunds Law Firm during the Applicant's appeal, as well as all information that led to the original security decision, the government has overturned the original denial. The Applicant was previously denied based on Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference. The government rated the Applicant a high risk because of her close ties with family members in Egypt, her identification with that country and her frequent visits there. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to prove the Applicant to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security at a hearing on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 in Chantilly, VA. Accordingly, on future security applicants and forms, the Applicant may affirm that she never had a clearance denied.

NSA APPROVED CLEARANCE

On September 27, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before the National Security Agency's Access Appeals Panel on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 in Annapolis Junction, MD. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline A – Alcohol Consumption, Guideline J – Criminal Conduct and Guideline E – Personal Conduct. The government alleged the Applicant's past abuse of alcohol was a concern to national security. The alcohol abuse resulted in multiple instances of intoxication, a "gray-out" and a DUI arrest and conviction. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the NSA Access Appeals Panel found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.

ALCOHOL, PSYCHOLOGICAL & PERSONAL CONDUCT

On September 27, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before the National Security Agency's Access Appeals Panel on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 in Annapolis Junction, MD. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline E – Personal Conduct, Guideline A – Alcohol Consumption and Guideline I – Psychological Conditions. The government alleged the Applicant's past alcohol abuse was a concern to national security. The alcohol abuse resulted in numerous DUI arrests and convictions, an incident of near violence towards his spouse, tolerance for mass quantities of alcohol and reliance on alcohol for anxiety reduction and stress coping. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the NSA Access Appeals Panel found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.

NSA APPROVAL – GUIDELINE G, J AND E

On September 27, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before the National Security Agency's Access Appeals Panel on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 in Annapolis Junction, MD. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline G – Alcohol Consumption, Guideline J – Criminal Conduct, and Guideline E – Personal Conduct. The government alleged the Applicant's past alcohol consumption habits, multiple arrests, seemingly frequent intoxication and involvement in driving under the influence were a concern to national security. The Edmunds Law submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the NSA Access Appeals Panel found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.

CLEARANCE APPROVED - FINANICAL MATTERS

On September 20, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Department of the Army found the Applicant's financial delinquencies to be a liability to national security. After a thorough review of written response and documentation submitted by The Edmunds Law Firm, as well as positive efforts by the Applicant to resolve any financial issues, the Department of the Army found the Applicant to be trustworthy and reliable. The Applicant was granted a Secret security clearance.

FOREIGN INFLUENCE - RELATIVES IN INDIA

On September 6, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on Thursday, June 2, 2011 in Chicago, IL. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline B - Foreign Influence. The government alleged the Applicant's immediate family members and other relatives who are citizens of India were a concern to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to provide the Applicant trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

DOHA SECURITY CLEARANCE - GUIDELINE E AND H

On August 25, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 in Arlington, VA. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Guideline E – Personal Conduct. The government alleged the Applicant's past use of marijuana and falsification of material facts were a concern to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION CLEARANCE

On August 9, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency on behalf of Applicant. The applicant sought the firm's consultation and advisement regarding past clearance revocations. After a review of documents, the applicant proved to be trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. The applicant was granted Full Secret security clearance.

DOHA SECURITY CLEARANCE - GUIDELINE F

On August 4, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on March 8, 2011 in Milwaukee, WI. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The Government alleged the Applicant's numerous unpaid debts were a concern to national security. The Applicant made good faith attempts to resolve outstanding debts and acted responsibly by making payments for the debts. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE - FAVORABLE RESPONSE

On August 2, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the Department of the Air Force on behalf of Applicant. The firm was successful in mitigating the security concerns under Guideline F – Financial Considerations, without the need for a hearing. The allegations against Applicant pertained to unpaid debts, numerous foreclosures and intentions to file for bankruptcy. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. The firm prevailed and Applicant was found eligible to maintain his security clearance.

SECURITY CLEARANCE GRANTED FROM DOHA

On July 28, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on June 24th 2011 in Arlington, Virginia. In this case, there personal conduct concerns pertaining to Guideline E. The Government alleged that due to sexual misconduct, the Applicant was convicted by members at a special court-martial of various offences and was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge. The Applicant also submitted false statements in a warrants application of DC. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

FAVORABLE RESPONSE - SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION APPROVED

On July 27, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written to response to the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals and was successful in mitigating the Government's concerns. Pending Applicant's background investigation for a security clearance, the Government issued Interrogatories to Applicant inquiring into discrepant information Applicant had provided to the Government regarding his former employer and/or employment. The government also inquired into Applicant's conduct involving illegal downloading of songs, video games, televisions shows, and movies. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written argument which sufficiently mitigated all security concerns. The Government determined that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

U.S. COAST GUARD FAVORABLE RESPONSE - GUIDELINE E

On July 16, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the U.S. Coast Guard Center on behalf of Applicant and successfully mitigated the Government's concerns without the need for a hearing. The Government raised security concerns under Guideline E - Personal Conduct and Guideline J - Criminal Conduct. The Government allegations against Applicant included conduct involving prostitutes, child pornography, falsifying documents, and improper storage, transportation and removal of classified information. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written argument and documentary evidence to provide Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible to maintain his security clearance.

VICTORY IN SF86 APPLICATION

On July 25, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government's concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were dishonest conduct, criminal conduct, and employment misconduct concerns pertaining. The Government alleged that Applicant was a risk to national security due to omitting relevant information on the SF86, failure to divulge an arrest, issuing a bad check, and storing sexually oriented materials on a company computer. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible for continued processing for his security clearance!

VICTORY FOR CLIENT WITH GUIDELINE B ACCUSATION!

On July 15, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on June 24th 2011 in Arlington, Virginia. In this case, there were allegations pertaining to Guideline B- Foreign Influence, Guideline C- Foreign Preference, and Guideline E- Personal Conduct. The Government alleged that the applicant could be a risk to national security because of the Applicant's close family ties to citizens and residents of Syria, the Applicant's preference for Brazil over the United States, and deliberate falsification during the security clearance process concerning his history of alcohol related arrests and marijuana use. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

NSA SECURITY CLEARANCE GRANTED - GUIDELINE H

On July 15, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the National Security Agency (NSA) Central Security Service on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government's concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were drug involvement and personal conduct concerns pertaining to Guideline H and Guideline E respectively. The Government alleged that Applicant was a risk to national security because he used prescription drugs with alcohol for a euphoric felling. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible for continued processing for his security clearance!

APPLICANT SECURITY CLEARANCE GRANTED - GUIDELINE F

On July 11, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received written notification of a favorable decision made in a security clearance matter. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on January 20, 2011 in San Diego, CA. In this case, there were security clearance concerns pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations and Guideline E -Personal Conduct. The evidence showed Applicant had 20 outstanding debts and 18 personal conduct concerns. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to demonstrate through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the Applicant was trustworthy, and met the eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and oral argument, the Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

FAVORABLE RESPONSE DETERMINATION - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

On June 20, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response to the US Department of Homeland Security on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government's concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were allegations of pertaining to Guideline E- Personal Conduct, as well as, Guideline — Use of Information Technology Systems. The Government alleged that Applicant was a risk to national security due to the storage and viewing of sexually oriented materials on a state computer system. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible to maintain his security clearance.

DOHA HEARING VICTORY FOR GUIDELINE E APPLICANT

On May 30, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The hearing for this matter was held before a DOHA Administrative Judge on May 25th 2011 in Arlington, Virginia. In this case, there personal conduct concerns pertaining to Guideline E. The Government alleged that due to sexual misconduct, the Applicant was convicted by members at a special court-martial of various offences and was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge. The Applicant also submitted false statements in a warrants application of DC. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

WRITTEN RESPONSE GRANTED

U.S. Department of State
Personal Conduct
Financial Considerations
April 21, 2011

On April 21, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable decision in an employment suitability matter. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government's concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there was an employment suitability concern pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations and Guideline E-Personal Conduct. The Government alleged that Applicant's fitness for contract employment was questionable due to a divorce and a second mortgage on a property as well as other concerns. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was fit and suitable for employment. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible for employment with his company!

WRITTEN RESPONSE GRANTED

U.S. Department of State
Personal Conduct
April 20, 2011

On April 20, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable decision in an employment suitability matter. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written response on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government's concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there was an employment suitability concern pertaining to Guideline E-Personal Conduct. The Government alleged that Applicant's fitness for contract employment was questionable due to a termination with a previous company for misconduct concerns. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove that Applicant was fit and suitable for employment. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible for employment with his company!

WRITTEN RESPONSE GRANTED

U.S. Department of State
Personal Conduct
Financial Considerations
Criminal Conduct
March 28, 2011

On March 28, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received written notification of a favorable decision made in a security clearance matter. In this case, there was a security concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct, Guideline F - Financial Considerations and Guideline J - Criminal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant had allegedly smuggled steroids in from Mexico. Applicant had purchased a medication for his spouse in Mexico but did not declare it and was fined. Applicant also had several outstanding debts. Applicant was briefly unemployed and has since become current on all debts. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written response to the Statement of Reasons as well as supporting evidence to display the Applicant's honesty and trustworthiness and was able to mitigate those security clearance concerns without going forward with a security clearance hearing.

GUIDELINE E

Personal Conduct
Case No.: 10-04031
Arlington, Virginia
March 25, 2011

On March 25, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received written notification of a favorable decision made in a security clearance matter. The hearing for this matter was held in Arlington, Virginia on January 26, 2011. In this case, there was a security concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant admitted that he had participated in the use of illegal drugs from 1996-2000. In 2002, Applicant purchased a game that had a missing part. Applicant returned to the store to retrieve the missing part from another game and left, but was never charged with shoplifting. Applicant also used steroids on several occasions in 2003. Additionally, Applicant illegally downloaded music and software to his personal computer. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to demonstrate through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the Applicant was trustworthy, and met the eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

GUIDELINE E & J

Personal Conduct
Criminal Conduct
Case No.: 09-08198
Arlington, Virginia
March 22, 2011

On March 22, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received written notification of a favorable decision made in a security clearance matter. The hearing for this matter was held in Arlington, Virginia on January 26, 2011. In this case, there was a security concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct and Guideline J - Criminal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant admitted that he had an extra marital affair with a Filipino foreign national while he lived in Kuwait. As a result, a son was born in early 2009. Applicant was also allegedly involved in the transporting of illegal drugs hidden in rental vehicles. Applicant was not involved previously with illegal drugs. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to demonstrate through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the Applicant was trustworthy, and met the eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Administrative Judge found that it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant the Applicant's security clearance.

GUIDELINE B

Foreign Influence
Case No.: 10-03425
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 18, 2011

On March 18, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received written notification of a favorable decision made in a security clearance matter. The hearing for this matter was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota on January 13, 2011. In this case, there was a security concern pertaining to Guideline B - Foreign Influence. The evidence showed that the Applicant was born in Pakistan. Applicant immigra