DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 15-04549
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
             December 9, 2016        
           
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP), on May 27, 2014. (Government Exhibit 1.) On April 1, 2016, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September
1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 2, 2016 (Answer), and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on June 21, 2016. This case was assigned to me on June 27, 2016. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 14, 2016. I
convened the hearing as scheduled on August 9, 2016. The Government offered
Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant
testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through C, which were
1
also admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
August 17, 2016.
Based on a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits and testimony, I proposed
to the parties in writing that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in
Applicant’s favor.  This was done by an email dated December 2, 2016. Department1
Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter, and provided written notice that he did not
object on December 4, 2016. Applicant provided written notice that he did not object on
December 5, 2016.
Applicant is 39, and married for the second time. He had one unpaid credit card
debt totaling about $18,000. Applicant has settled and paid the debt, which was incurred
during his first marriage, and is current on his existing obligations. Based on the record
evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence
to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline F. I also conclude that
Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts
admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that
the security concerns are resolved 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 or vice
versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I
conclude that Applicant 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. 
Wilford H. Ross
Administrative Judge 
Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision1
of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from
the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.
2