DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 15-08358
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Michael A. Meyer, Esquire
             December 9, 2016        
           
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP), on April 8, 2015. (Government Exhibit 1.) On March 25, 2016, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and J (Criminal Conduct) 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 6, 2016 (Answer), and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on June 15, 2016. This case was assigned to me on June 27, 2016. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued notices of hearing on July 14, August 8, and
August 9, 2016. I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 16, 2016. The
Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called one additional witness, and
1
submitted Applicant Exhibits A through E, which were also admitted without objection.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 26, 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 November 29, 2016. Department1
Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter, and provided written notice that he did not
object on November 30, 2016. Applicant did not object within ten days of November 29,
2016.
Applicant is 30, and married. He had two unpaid medical debts totaling about
$10,000.  Applicant has paid the debts and is current on his existing obligations.  He
also had one arrest and conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2012.
Applicant fulfilled the sentencing requirements of the conviction, and no longer drinks
and drives. 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
Guidelines F and J. 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(b), 20(c), 20(d), 32(a), and 32(d). 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems, and single incident of
driving under the influence, 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