1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-04332 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 29, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial 
considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by 
the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on March 22, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 24, 2016. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on August 25, 2016. On November 30, 2016, I proposed 
that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant worked in a combat zone overseas for two years. He hired a CPA to 
handle his taxes, but they were done incorrectly and Applicant incurred tax liability from 
two different states and the federal government. He presented documentary evidence 
showing that he paid all his state and federal tax liability. The SOR also alleged five 
 
2 
 
other debts totaling $3,672. Applicant provided documentation showing that these debts 
have all been resolved. The evidence established that Applicant’s current finances are 
in good order. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security 
concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 
20(c), and 20(d).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt 
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect 
classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole 
and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he 
met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge