Security Clearance Verdicts and Press Releases

December 2, 2011

“Thank you so much for your professionalism/legal assistance during this difficult time, I do appreciate it very much. I hope and pray that the resultant decision is favorable, as it should be

Again, thank you"

-Applicant, Huntsville, AL

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)

Hello,

I spoke with my company's security personnel today. They informed me that, from everything they have access to,shows my clearance has been restored. I have my Top Secret clearance back and I can regain the SCI portion if required. It seems that my next interview for an update will be in 2014. So, I guess before I close this e-mail 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)

August 19, 2011

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)

August 8, 2011

Hi John,

I just wanted to tell you that I received my Full Secret Security Clearance from US Customs on Monday and I start work in October. Your help came in handy with my response to the question regarding past clearance revocations. Thanks again and I will be sure to recommend your law firm to my co-workers for any future legal needs.

–Applicant (Huntington Beach, CA)

August 5, 2011

Hi Vanessa,

Thank you and Mr. Edmund's for all the hard work you put into my case. It has been a long in the waiting. I'm so excited I can't describe. Do I need to fill out this bottom page and return it or has that been done already? I'm just in shock. After all this time waiting its finally here. We are all so excited. Words can't describe. Thank you all so much.

–Applicant (Big Bend, WI)

June 17, 2011

Vanessa,

I checked with my security manager and I saw for myself that I was granted my clearance by AFCAF on the system that he uses. I think he was on his system today when he saw an alert pop in with my name on it. I think he might have not received the letter yet because we found out just today but if I do get anything from them regarding my clearance I will definitely fax it to you. Thanks for your expertise!

–Applicant (Minneapolis, MN)

May 25, 2011

Thank you so much for all of your hard work on my case! I CAN FINALLY GO BACK TO WORK! YEAH!

–Applicant (Carlsbad, CA)

May 24, 2011

We won! I received word that the appeals board president re-enstated my clearance and I start back to work tomorrow morning. Thank you once again for the great representation on my case. You're a true professional and I am very impressed with your skills. Thanks to your team for their hard work!

–Applicant (Albuquerque, NM)

May 24, 2011

You will be happy to know that my clearance was granted. Thanks for all of the help.

–Applicant (Marina, CA)

May 24, 2011

Thank you so much Mr. Alan. I would be happy to offer my referral to anyone that I know would need your service. Your help truly speaks volumes about your great work.

–Applicant (Oaktown, VA)

April 26, 2011

I received a voice message from my employer human resource late last Friday indicating that DONCAF has determined to cancel my clearance suspension and that I am now eligible for clearance security. I am so happy of this great news.

I will be back to duty tomorrow to meet security office and HR office for paper procedures. Thank you very much for your best efforts and help on my case.

–Applicant

April 21, 2011

I would like to thank the Edmunds Law Firm for all there help and assistance in this matter, I have to say I will refer any person I know that needs this type of service to your office. My family and I thank you for your hard work and commitment.

–Applicant

On December 7, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice from the Government of a favorable security clearance decision under guideline F for financial consideration. The applicant had taken out a home loan in the amount of $100,000.00 and stopped making payments. The Government had concerns about the applicant not being trustworthy and responsible. The Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate these concerns by sending a written response to the Government on the applicant’s behalf. No formal hearing was necessary, as the applicant was granted clearance based solely on the response prepared by the Firm.

On December 1, 2011 the Edmunds Law Firm received notice of a favorable decision under Guideline F. The applicant had debts totaling $60,000 which presented concerns for the government regarding her security clearance. The Firm prepared a written response to her SOR and also represented the applicant in a formal hearing in front of an Administrative Judge. Through the written response and oral argument on behalf of the applicant, the Edmunds Law Firm was able to mitigate the Government’s concerns. The Administrative Judge granted the clearance, agreeing that the applicant’s debts were due to matters outside of her control and she has taken steps to put her financial house in order.

On November 23, 2011 the Edmunds Law firm received notification that a case regarding a client’s security clearance denial was won. The government had concerns under guideline E, stating that he had been using illegal substances after a clearance had been granted. The Edmunds Law firm prepared a written response to a Statement of Reasons that was issued by the government. Based on this response the government was able to grant the applicants clearance without a formal hearing.

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.

The Edmunds Law Firm received notification that a security clearance applicant was granted clearance on November 10, 2011 after a hearing at which the firm represented said applicant. The applicant was allegedly using marijuana and had problems with alcohol abuse. Based on the pleadings and documents prepared by the Edmunds Law Firm and oral argument on behalf of the applicant, the Administrative Judge determined that the applicant’s mitigating factors were sufficient to grant him clearance.

On November 10, 2011 notification was received by the Edmunds Law Firm that a security clearance applicant facing denial under Guideline F was granted a clearance. A statement of Reasons was issued that listed eight separate outstanding debts, the bulk of which were student loans. After submitting a written response to the SOR on behalf of the applicant, the Edmunds Law Firm represented him in a formal hearing in front of an Administrative Judge. The applicant’s clearance was granted after the Edmunds Law Firm provided proof that the applicant had been making good-faith attempts to pay off his debts and that these debts were largely out of the applicant’s control.

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.

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.

 
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. 

 
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.

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.

 
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.

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.

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. 

 
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.

  
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.

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.

 
On September 20, 2011 The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable security clearance determination. The Department of the Army was concerned with the Applicant's finanical issues and delinquencies. After thorough review and consideration of written reponse and documentation submitted by The Edmunds Law Firm, as well as efforts to resolve finanical security concerns by the Applicant, the Department of the Army found the Applicant's debt not to be risk to national security. The Applicant was granted a Secret security clearance.

 
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 prove 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.

 
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.

 
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 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.

 
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 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 arguments and documentary evidence to prove 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 Applicant's security clearance.

 
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.

 
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 Department of the Air Force on behalf of Applicant. The firm was successful in mitigating the security concerns under Guideline B – Foreign Influence, without need for a hearing. The allegations against Applicant pertained to ongoing foreign contacts, various foreign bank accounts and future intent to retire in the Philippines. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written argument and documentary evidence to prove Applicant was a loyal citizen and not a risk to national security. The Edmunds Law Firm prevailed in the written response alone and Applicant was found eligible to maintain a security clearance.

 
On July 7, 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 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, television shows and movies. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a written argument which sufficiently mitigated all security concerns. The government determined it was clearly consistent with national interests to grant Applicant’s security clearance.

 
On July 6, 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’s allegations against Applicant include 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 prove Applicant 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.

 
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 U.S. Department of Homeland Security on behalf of the Applicant and was successful in mitigating the government’s concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were allegations pertaining to Guideline E – Personal Conduct, as well as, Guideline M – Use of Information Technology Systems. This 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 written response alone. The Applicant was found eligible to maintain his security clearance.

 
On May 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.

 
On May 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 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.

 
On May 24, 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.

 
On May 24, 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 27, 2011 in Arlington, VA. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline B - Foreign Influence. The evidence showed Applicant had family members who were citizens and residence of India. 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.

 
On April 28, 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 due to recent drug use of marijuana and his lack of judgment. 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.

 
On April 27, 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 October 13, 2010 in San Francisco, CA. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The evidence showed Applicant had several outstanding debts. The Applicant had fallen victim to the current economic crisis, was unemployed twice in the last two years, and encountered financial difficulties due to bad gambling habits. 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.

 
On April 26, 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 Navy Central Adjudications Facility (DONCAF) on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government’s concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were criminal conduct concerns pertaining to Guideline J. The Government alleged that Applicant was a concern to national security due to an NCIS investigation related to theft of Government funds, Misuse of Government Purchase Card, and Fraud against the Government. 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 security clearance and returned to duty the following day.

 
On April 22, 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 Navy Central Adjudications Facility (DONCAF) on behalf of Applicant and was successful in mitigating the Government’s concern without the need for a hearing. In this case, there were concerns pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The Government alleged that Applicant was a concern to national security due to his filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, items in collection, foreclosure, late payments, and involuntary reposition. The Applicant made good faith attempts to resolve outstanding debts and acted responsibly by making payments for his debts. 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 security clearance without the need for a hearing.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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 clearance concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct, Guideline F - Financial Considerations and Guideline J - Criminal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant allegedly smuggled steroids in from Mexico. Applicant had purchased a medication for his spouse while in Mexico but did not declare it and was fined. Applicant had several outstanding debts. Applicant was briefly unemployed and has since become current with 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.

 
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 clearance 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.

 
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 clearance 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.

 
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 clearance concern pertaining to Guideline B - Foreign Influence. The evidence showed that the Applicant was born in Pakistan. Applicant immigrated to the United States in 1989 to obtain higher education and to achieve a better life. Applicant became a permanent alien resident in 2002. Applicant is married to a woman born in Pakistan and is a current resident. Applicant's wife entered the United States in 2009 on a visa and became a permanent alien resident in May 2010. Applicant's brother-in-law is a commander in the Pakistani Navy. Applicant visited Pakistan in 2006, 2008, and twice in 2009. Applicant's parents, two brothers and one sister are citizens and residents of the United States. Another sibling is a resident with U.S. permanent alien status. 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.

 
On March 16, 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 December 14, 2010. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant had been arrested in the 1970s and charged with possession of marijuana. In the 1980s, Applicant was arrested several times for alcohol related offenses. In the 1990s similar charges were brought against the Applicant and again in 2000 Applicant was charged with assault and battery. Applicant also admitted to using drugs again in 2004. 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.

 
On March 15, 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 Boise, Idaho on August 17, 2010. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The evidence showed that the Applicant had several outstanding debts. Applicant's debts were largely due to the housing market crash. Applicant's spouse was a real estate broker whose monthly income dropped to $400 only a few months after purchasing their home in 2006. Applicant was able to maintain payments towards their mortgage, but was unable to stay current with their credit cards. By mid-2008, Applicant's spouse was laid off from her real estate job due to lack of available work, but was able to find part time work by late 2008. 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.

 
On March 14, 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 Annapolis Junction, Maryland on February 11. 2011. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant had provided information during an interview for his security clearance that he searched for pornographic material on his work computer. The allegations stated that from 2000-2006, Applicant searched for and viewed pornographic material two to three times a week for 30 minutes at a time. 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.

 
On February 14, 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 Charleston, South Carolina, on November 18, 2010. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct and Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The evidence showed that the Applicant had allegedly deliberately failed to disclose that he was delinquent on several accounts. Applicant also had several outstanding debts. Applicant's financial problems began when his father became seriously ill and he tried to support his parents while supporting his immediate family as well. While deployed in 2005, Applicant discovered that his debts were not being paid by family members. Applicant retained The Edmunds Law Firm for assistance in this matter. 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.

 
On February 9, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable decision in a security clearance matter. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline E - Personal Conduct and Guideline J - Criminal Conduct. The evidence showed that the Applicant had allegedly sent an email claiming he was an officer. 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 concerns without going forward with a security clearance hearing.

 
On February 8, 2011, The Edmunds Law Firm received notification of a favorable decision in a security clearance matter. In this case, there was a security clearance concern pertaining to Guideline F - Financial Considerations. The evidence showed that the Applicant had several outstanding debts. Applicant had fallen victim to the housing market crash of 2009. Applicant had two properties that he was attempting to refinance, but those attempts for refinancing were refused. The Edmunds Law Firm submitted a writte