DCA
May 6, 2013
Guideline E and Guideline F

On May 6, 2013, the Edmunds Law Firm received a favorable decision after the submission of a written Response to Statement of Reasons, which was prepared on behalf of the Applicant. Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and Guideline F, Financial Considerations, were of issue in the particular case. The Applicant had incurred a significant amount of debt with multiple tax liens filed against him/her, of which he/she failed to disclose while filling out the security clearance application. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted the written Response to the Statement of Reasons along with supportive documentation. We were able to successfully mitigate the government’s concerns through only the written response and the Applicant’s security clearance was reinstated.

DoDCAF
Industry Division B
March 25, 2013
Guideline F

On March 25, 2013, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification from our client that their security clearance had been reinstated as a result of the response to Interrogatories prepared by The Edmunds Law Firm. This case in particular involved Guideline F, Financial Considerations and was a direct result of a delinquent mortgage. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the governments concerns through the written response and supportive documentation. The Applicant’s access was restored and he was able to move forward in his career.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DECISION
March 18, 2013
Woodland Hills, CA
Guideline F

The Edmunds Law Firm received yet another favorable decision from an Administrative Law Judge, involving an individual who’s security clearance was revoked due to allegations involving Guideline F, failure and inability to live within ones means. The case went to a formal hearing in Woodland Hills. The Applicant had a total of eight debts that were alleged to be delinquent or in collections by the Government. The case was handled on behalf of the Edmunds Law Firm by Attorney Paula W. Phinney. Ms. Phinney took oral testimony, introduced documentary evidence and made argument concerning mitigating factors.

At the conclusion of the case the Judge took the matter under submission and rendered a written decision in favor of the Applicant, the Client of the Edmunds Law Firm. Guideline F cases are very difficult to win, they require a great deal of experience on behalf of the Attorney and a great deal of documentary evidence. The Edmunds Law Firm is very experienced with these types of cases and Attorney Alan V. Edmunds has successfully litigated these cases from coast to coast. The Edmunds Law Firm is a recognized leader in the area of security clearance representation. This case was particularly important because the Applicant’s career was saved and the employment situation, which could of resulted in termination, was avoided.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DECISION
DOHA: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
MARCH 11, 2013

On March 11, 2013, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of another favorable security clearance decision after representing the Applicant in front of a DOHA Administrative Judge. This case in particular involved Guideline E, Personal Conduct. Personal Conduct can raise question on a person’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. After presenting evidence and making arguments, Attorney Edmunds was able to mitigate the Government’s allegations and the Applicant’s Security Clearance was reinstated.

March 4,2013
Arlington, VA.
Guideline B – Foreign Influence
Country: China

The Edmunds Law Firm obtained a favorable decision from DOHA on a case involving Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference involving an applicant with contacts in China.
After reviewing the evidence submitted to the gov’t attorney a decision was made to withdraw the SOR and allow the applicant to proceed with her clearance.
The Edmunds Law Firm helps security clearance applicants around the globe – both military and civilian.
Mr. Edmunds represents clients in all phases of the security clearance process and before all gov’t Agencies. If you have a case before NSA, DIA, FBI, CIA, or DOE call 800 481 2526 for guidance. Your career and reputation is too important.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
February 2013
Statement of Reasons (SOR)

February 2013 – Client was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Foreign Influence, Sexual Conduct, Personal Conduct, and Criminal Conduct due to multiple (over 100) liaisons with prostitutes and one-night stands with women he met at bars and clubs while stationed abroad. We responded to the SOR. The government requested that the client take a polygraph, after which his clearance was reinstated with conditions.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
February 2013
Interrogatories on Financial Concerns

February 2013 – Client’s clearance reinstated after responding to Interrogatories on Financial Concerns. Client had co-signed a mortgage for his son, but unknown to the client, his son stopped paying the mortgage and the home was foreclosed. Clearance to client reinstated and full access to classified information resumed.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
February 2013
Drug Use and Personal Conduct

February 2013 – Drug Use and Personal Conduct: client, an engineer, used marijuana intermittently while in high school and college. Shortly after graduation, he was hired by a Department of Energy contractor. He declared his prior marijuana use when applying for employment with a Department of Energy contractor. However, he failed to disclose one instance of marijuana use which occurred while he was already working for the government and holding a clearance. Our client voluntarily disclosed this information to his security officer, but the government was concerned that this failure to disclose constituted a lie and that he used marijuana while working on classified material. After a hearing on the matter, our client was able to mitigate the government’s concerns and his clearance was reinstated.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
February 2013
Financial

February 2013 – Financial: client, an aircraft technician and pilot, faced numerous financial concerns, including one debt owed over $30,000 that he was unable to pay. Client was receiving unemployment income of only $1700 each month and had an extremely tight budget, having to balance his present living expenses with paying off some of the smaller debts owed. Because of his limited income, he could not make payments on the large $30,000 debt. He could not find work that would enable him to pay off these debts because his clearance had been suspended, although he had several job prospects willing to sponsor him. With our help, he was able to demonstrate at a DOHA hearing that he acted reasonably to try and pay off his debts given his very limited financial means. The judge found for Applicant, and his security clearance was reinstated.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
January 31, 2013
DONCAF – Guideline F

The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of yet another favorable security clearance determination as a result of the written Response to Statement of Reasons, prepared by the Edmunds Law Firm on behalf of the Applicant. This case in particular involved Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant was issued a Statement of Reasons outlining concerns regarding several financial delinquencies, as well as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared the written Response to Statement of Reasons, along with significant supportive documentation. The government’s concerns regarding Applicant’s past financial issues were successfully mitigated and Applicant’s security clearance was successfully reinstated.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
December 26, 2012
AFCAF – Guideline F

The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of another favorable security clearance determination as a result of the Reapplication Brief prepared by the Edmunds Law Firm on behalf of the Applicant. This case involved Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant was issued a Statement of Reasons, wherein a written response was submitted to the Agency, however, Applicant failed to mitigate the government’s concerns. After waiting the required one (1) year time frame, Applicant sought assistance from the Edmunds Law Firm in the reapplication process. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted the Reapplication Brief for security clearance, along with ample supportive documentation. The government’s concerns regarding Applicant’s past financial issues were successfully mitigated and Applicant’s security clearance was successfully reinstated.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATION
December 21, 2012
ACAF – Guideline F

The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of yet another favorable security clearance determination as a result of a written Response to Statement of Reasons. This case in particular involved Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant had incurred nearly $20,000.00 in debt as a result of an immediate family member’s legal issues. Through both the written Response and supportive documentation, the Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the government’s concerns regarding Applicant’s past financial issues and the individual’s security clearance was successfully reinstated.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE VICTORY
AFCAF
December 18, 2012
Guideline G – Alcohol Consumption

On December 18, 2012, the Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable determination after submission of a written Response to Statement of Reasons. In this case, Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, was of concern. Applicant had a history of alcohol abuse, which included mandatory participation in both inpatient and outpatient alcohol related counseling. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted a written Response to the Statement of Reasons along with supportive documentation to the Agency and was able to mitigate the government’s concerns successfully.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DECISION
November 6, 2012
DOHA
Guideline H and Guideline E

On November 6, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable decision after appearing as counsel for Applicant in Woodland Hills, California. This particular case involved Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. The Applicant, in this case, experimented with illegal drugs, marijuana, after being issued a Top Secret Security Clearance. Guideline H states that the use of illegal drugs can raise question about a person reliability and trustworthiness. Guideline E pairs with Guideline H in this case which questions the Applicant’s judgment and lack of willingness to follow rules. This can also raise question about a person’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the governments concerns through oral testimony and the submission of supportive documentation and were able to prove the Applicant to be a reliable and trustworthy person.

PERU, INDIANA
ALCOHOL & FINANCIAL

On December 12, 2012 The Edmunds Law Firm, a global leader in national security clearance representation, received another favorable decision from a written Response to SOR. The case involved alcohol incidents and financial issues. Attorney Edmunds, one of this countries leading security clearance attorneys was able to mitigate all concerns and the clearance was granted without a Formal Hearing. Another career saved!

Attorney Edmunds submitted a written Response with numerous exhibits and a compelling argument that was accepted by the government. The client saved money and a career. The Edmunds Law Firm can help you as well – call 800 481 2526

Canyon Lake, CA
Favorable Security Clearance Determination DOHA
Guideline F

On October 30, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination under Guideline F – Financial Considerations. The Government alleged concerns that Applicant was financially overextended and at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. After a thorough review of written response, evidence submitted, and oral argument by The Edmunds Law Firm, as well as positive efforts by the Applicant to resolve any financial issues, the Government found the Applicant to be honest, responsible, and making efforts to resolve their financial situation. Applicant’s security clearance was successfully reinstated and was able to move forward in their career.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE
Guideline B

On October 9, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination after representing the Applicant at a personal appearance before a DOHA Administrative Law Judge. This case in particular involved Guideline B, Foreign Influence.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE AFCAF
Guideline F

On October 3, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination as a result of the Response to Statement of Reasons (SOR) package prepared on behalf of the Applicant. This case pertained to Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Applicant, who owned several rental properties, was greatly affected by the housing market crash and was forced to foreclose on several of the properties, in addition to an accumulation of debts. Through the written Response to SOR package, and supportive documentation, the Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the government’s concerns and the Applicant was able to move forward in their career.

FAVORABLE SECURITY CLEARANCE DECISION AFCAF
Guideline B and Guideline C

On October 1, 2012, the Edmunds Law Firm received a favorable decision after submission of a written Response to Statement of Reasons, prepared on behalf of the Applicant. Guidelines B and C were of issue in this case. After retiring from the Air Force, Applicant, a United States citizen, moved to a foreign country and obtained foreign citizenship with this country, only to return to the United States a few years later. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to successfully mitigate the government’s concerns through the written Response. Six (6) days after the AFCAF received the written Response to Statement of Reasons package, the Applicant’s security clearance was reinstated and was able to return to work the following day.

FAVORABLE DECISION AFCAF
Guideline F

On September 20, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification a favorable decision as a result of a written response to a Statement of Reasons. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared and submitted the written response to Statement of Reasons to the AFCAF on behalf of their client. The Applicant in this matter had accumulated a significant amount of debt after becoming unemployed. Altogether, the alleged amount owed calculated to be over $165,000.00. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the Financial Concerns through their written response and supportive documentation and the Applicant was able to move forward in their career.

Florida
Favorable Security Clearance Determination
Guideline E, F, and J

On July 25, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline E-Personal Conduct, Guideline F-Financial Considerations, and Guideline J-Criminal Conduct. The Applicant was charged with several counts of Battery, Fraud, and Contempt of Court, and as a result, the Government became concerned about his judgment, dishonesty, and unwillingness to comply with laws and revoked his clearance. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a Formal Hearing before DOHA. The hearing took place in March of 2012 in Florida. Through oral argument on behalf of the Applicant and evidence submitted, the firm was able to successfully mitigate all of the Government’s security concerns. The original decision was reversed and the Applicant was granted his clearance.

New Jersey
Favorable Security Clearance Determination
Guidelines E, F, G, and J

On August 27, 2012, the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations, Guideline E-Personal Conduct, Guideline G-Alcohol Consumption, and Guideline J- Criminal Conduct. Applicant was charged with counts of Simple Assault, DUI, Delinquent Debt, and Reckless Driving which created concern for the Government. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a formal hearing before DOHA. The Hearing took place in June of 2012 in Virginia 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.

San Diego
Favorable Security Clearance Determination
Guideline F-Financial Concerns

On July 25, 2012, The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable security clearance determination. The firm represented the Applicant in a formal hearing before an Administrative Judge in Arlington, Virginia in May of 2012. The government expressed concerns that the Applicant was no longer responsible and trustworthy, as she allegedly had nine delinquencies on her credit report while filing for Bankruptcy. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted written argument and documentary evidence to prove the Applicant was trustworthy, reliable and working towards resolving all financial problems. The firm was successful in mitigating all concerns and the Applicant’s clearance was reissued.

Favorable Security Clearance Determination

On April 24, 2012, 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 Defense (DOD) on behalf of Applicant and attended a hearing on February 27, 2012. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline E – Personal Conduct and Guideline M – Use of Information Technology Systems. The Government alleged that Applicant was a concern to national security due to his resignation from a previous employer, as well as, misuse of information technology. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the governments concerns and prove that Applicant was trustworthy, reliable, and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written response, attended Applicant’s hearing and Applicant was found eligible for his security clearance!

Favorable Decision: Guidelines J-Criminal Conduct and H-Drug Involvement

The Edmunds Law Firm recieved notice of a favorable decision on April 24, 2012. The firm represented an Applicant whose case was heard in California before an Administrative Judge in March 2012. The Applicant was a young soldier who was undergoing standard security processing and his security cleareance was revoked after he admitted to using illegal drugs while on active duty and while holding a cleareance. The Applicant was addicted to several illegal substances including heroin and cocaine and had purchased them illegally while on duty out of the counrty and had brought the drugs home. The firm was able to mitigate the concerns of the Government through oral argument and the presentation of many exhibits to the Judge. The favorable decision was announced less than two months after the hearing.

Decision to Revoke Reversed Despite Multiple DUI Charges

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision on April 16, 2012. The Applicant in this matter had his clearance revoked under Guideline J-Criminal Conduct. The Government became doubtful of his good judgment and reliability due to several DUI’s he had been charged with over the past ten years. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a hearing before an Administrative Judge in Woodland Hills, California in October 2011. The firm was able to fully mitigate the concerns of the Government through their response to the SOR and oral argument on behalf of the Applicant at the hearing.

Favorable Decision: Guideline H

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of another favorable security clearance outcome on April 11, 2012. The Applicant is a Government contractor who admitted to past drug use during standard security processing. She admitted to frequent drug use when she was in High School. As such, the Government became concerned as to the Applicant’s trustworthiness, good judgment and reliability. The Applicant was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal from the Department of Homeland Security. With her clearance and job on the line, she contacted the Edmunds Law Firm. The firm prepared a written response to the Notice containing mitigating factors and supporting exhibits. Upon review of the response, the Government reversed their original decision to remove the Applicant and she was able to keep her clearance and her position.

Clearance Granted Despite Criminal Conduct Allegations

On March 29, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of yet another favorable decision. The firm was hired to prepare and submit a written response to the Applicant’s Government-issued SOR. The main allegation against the Applicant was a theft charge that showed up on his record during standard security processing. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the Government’s concerns through the response alone. The Government quickly reversed the original decision and reinstated the Applicant’s clearance.

Guideline E Decision to Revoke Overturned

The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline E-personal Conduct on March 27, 2012. The Applicant had allegedly misused classified information and falsified information on her Government forms. This case was heard before an Administrative Judge in Chantilly, Virginia on October, 2011. The Edmunds Law Firm offered several mitigating factors through exhibits submitted and oral argument on behalf of the Applicant during the hearing. The firm was successful in mitigation and the Applicant was able to keep her clearance and most importantly, her job.

Favorable Decision Despite Drug Allegations

On March 16, 2012 The Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable security clearance determination. The firm represented the Applicant in a formal hearing before an Administrative Judge in Tampa, Florida. The government alleged the Applicant’s abuse of prescription medication including Xanax, Vicoden and several others, 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. The firm was successful in mitigating all concerns and the Applicant’s clearance was reissued.

Favorable Decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations

On March 5, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline F-Financial Considerations. The Applicant was issued five separate tax warrants from the State of Oklahoma and as a result, the Government became concerned about his trustworthiness and revoked his clearance. The Edmunds Law Firm represented the Applicant in a formal hearing before DOHA. The hearing took place in October of 2011 in Oklahoma. Through oral argument on behalf of the Applicant and evidence submitted, the firm was able to successfully mitigate all of the Government’s security concerns. The original decision was reversed and the Applicant was granted his clearance.

Favorable Decision: Guideline E

The Edmund’s Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline E-Personal Conduct on February 28, 2012. The Applicant’s clearance was revoked when the Government expressed concerns due to multiple safety and traffic violations that the Applicant had been charged with. He had been issued over ten separate citations for speeding and/or safety violations in the past four years. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the Government-issued SOR on behalf of the Applicant. The firm went on to represent the Applicant in a hearing in El Paso, Texas before an Administrative Judge. The firm was successful in mitigating all of the Government’s concerns and the Applicant was granted his clearance.

Clearance Granted Despite Alleged Time Card Fraud

On February 23, 2012 the Edmunds Law Firm received a favorable decision under guideline E-Personal Conduct. The Applicant was employed by a Government consulting firm and had been accused of time card fraud. He was issued a denial letter along with a Statement of Reasons from the NSA. The Government was concerned about his trustworthiness and commitment to preserving classified information. The Edmunds Law Firm prepared a written response to the NSA on behalf of the applicant. The response addressed each allegation in the SOR. Through the response alone, the Edmunds Law Firm was successful in mitigating the Government’s concerns. Clearance was granted.

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 Necessary

On 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 – Financial 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!