1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-04358 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Bryan J. Olmos, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 2, 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 April 15, 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 September 20, 2016. On November 28, 2016, I 
proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in 
Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant’s husband at the time lost his full-time and part-time jobs in a short 
period. Their ensuing financial problems contributed to their separation in 2014 and 
divorce this year. Applicant had surgeries in 2014 and 2015, and she was out of work 
on disability. Her ex-husband does not pay his court-ordered child support. Despite her 
 
2 
 
difficulties, Applicant paid, settled, made payment plans for, or otherwise resolved most 
of the debts alleged in the SOR. She has a plan to resolve her financial problems, and 
she has taken significant action to implement that plan. 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 her 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 she 
met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Edward W. Loughran 
Administrative Judge