1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-08785 
 ) 
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 22, 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 9, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 12, 2016. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on November 15, 2016. On November 28, 2016, I 
proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant’s husband passed away in 2008, and she lost her job in 2009. She 
accrued ten unpaid debts totaling about $15,470. She paid, settled, made payment 
plans for, or otherwise resolved most of the debts alleged in the SOR. She has a plan to 
resolve her financial problems, and she has taken significant action to implement that 
 
2 
 
plan. 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), 20(c), 20(d), 
and 20(e).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems do not create doubt 
about her 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 she 
met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Edward W. Loughran 
Administrative Judge