1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-08045 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: 
 
On May 12, 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 June 10, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 9, 2016. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on November 14, 2016. On November 29, 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 wife became sick and incurred substantial medical bills. She also lost 
her job. Applicant’s first and second mortgage loans became delinquent, and his house 
was eventually lost to foreclosure in about 2015. There is no evidence that the creditors 
are seeking any deficiencies owed on the loans. Applicant’s current finances are sound. 
 
2 
 
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), and 20(c).  
 
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 him eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Edward W. Loughran 
Administrative Judge