1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-04488 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On December 11, 2015, 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 January 21, 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 23, 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 established through documentation that the three SOR debts in the 
amount of $23,825 were the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to a court order 
entered in his divorce case in 2009. Despite the order, Applicant settled one of the 
debts with the creditor in August 2016. Applicant’s evidence established that he is in 
 
2 
 
good financial standing. 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(c), 20(d), and 20(e).  
 
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 his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge