1 
 
 
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
               
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-05838 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Douglas Velvel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has mitigated security concerns pertaining to Guideline F (financial 
considerations). Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On February 19, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National 
Security Positions (SF-86). On February 16, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 
Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated 
January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became 
effective on September 1, 2006. 
 
The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F (financial 
considerations).  The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF was unable to find that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance for 
 
2 
 
 
Applicant, and it recommended that his case be submitted to an administrative judge 
for a determination whether his clearance should be granted or denied.  
 
On March 16, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR. On May 4, 2016, 
Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On May 9, 2016, DOHA assigned 
Applicant’s case to me. On May 19, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for June 8, 2016. The 
hearing was held as scheduled. 
 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered Government Exhibits (GE) 1 
through 5, which were received into evidence without objection. Applicant testified, 
called one witness, and offered Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through C, which were 
received into evidence without objection. On June 16, 2016, DOHA received the 
hearing transcript. I held the record open until July 8, 2016, to afford Applicant an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence. Applicant timely submitted AE D through U, 
which were received into evidence without objection. Department Counsel moved to 
withdraw SOR ¶ 1.m. Without objection from the Applicant, I granted Department 
Counsel’s motion.  
 
After receipt of the transcript and the record closed, I provided written notice to 
the Government of my intent to resolve the case through summary disposition in 
Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel indicated that the Government did not object to 
my proposed resolution of the matter in this fashion. 
 
Background Information 
 
Applicant is a 58-year-old information technology senior manager employed by 
a defense contractor since March 2003. He has successfully held a secret security 
clearance since he began his employment with his company and seeks to retain his 
clearance as a requirement of his continued employment.  
 
Applicant graduated from high school in May 1976. He was awarded a bachelor 
of arts degree in criminal justice and sociology in May 1981. Applicant received a post-
technical certificate in computer science in July 1982. Applicant married in May 1984, 
and has a 26-year-old daughter. 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 Applicant’s SOR lists a July 2015 Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and five debts 
consisting of a past-due mortgage, two collection accounts, and two delinquent 
accounts. These allegations were substantiated either through Applicant’s admissions 
the evidence presented. Applicant attributes his financial problems to the collapse of 
the housing market, being the victim of a predatory lender, and loss of his wife’s full-
time job. Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts through 
frequent contact with his creditors as well as seeking financial counseling which led to 
him successfully resolving his debts. 
 
3 
 
 
 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) through 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 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