DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 15-04687 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina Marine, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
On April 30, 2014, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On January 25, 2016, after reviewing the application and information 
gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement of reasons 
(SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR detailed the 
factual reasons for the action under the security guidelines known as Guideline F for 
financial considerations and E for personal conduct. Applicant timely answered the SOR 
and requested a hearing. 
                                                          
1
 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of 
Defense  Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated 
January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining 
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on 
September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. 
§ 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to 
September 1, 2006 and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.     
 
2 
 
 
On August 4, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On October 27, 2016, the 
hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the hearing, I held the record 
open until November 18, 2016, to afford Applicant an opportunity to submit additional 
evidence. Applicant timely submitted numerous documents. After reviewing 
Applicant’s post-hearing documents, I e-mailed the parties indicating that this case 
was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not 
object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written 
notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant had a number of debts primarily as a result of uncovered medical 
expenses. He has paid, successfully disputed, or otherwise resolved all of his debts. 
Applicant has held a clearance for over 20 years without incident and has an excellent 
reputation for trustworthiness.  Personal conduct concerns were determined to be 
unsubstantiated. 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 financial considerations security 
concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 
20(e) and as noted personal conduct concerns were unsubstantiated. 
 
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 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 J. Tuider 
Administrative Judge