This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,1
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
replace the guidelines in Enclosure 2 to the Directive.    
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 16-00590
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (SF 86 Format) on September 30, 2015. Thereafter, on May 18, 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 her eligibility for access to classified
information.  The SOR detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security1
guideline known as Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered
the SOR; she admitted a single allegation concerning a past-due mortgage loan; and
she requested a hearing.
 Exhibits A–H. 2
2
The case was assigned to me on August 23, 2016. The hearing was held as
scheduled on November 10, 2016. After Applicant’s timely submission of post-hearing
matters on December 9, 2016, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate
for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor, because the evidence shows that
Applicant has explained and mitigated the sole financial issue and there are no
foreseeable appellate issues. Both Applicant and Department Counsel had ten days to
consider the matter and lodge an objection to a summary disposition, but neither
Applicant nor Department Counsel objected.  
Applicant obtained a mortgage loan to buy residential real estate in 2008, and
maintained it as a primary residence until 2010, when she moved to another state for
her current job. She continued to pay the mortgage loan until 2014, when she sought
loss-mitigation assistance from the mortgage lender, who, in turn, suggested  a deed in
lieu of foreclosure. She made the necessary application in August 2014, she stopped
making mortgage payments in November 2014, and about a year later the mortgage
lender requested she sign a promissory note for $54,000 and subsequently lowered
their offer to $22,440. She declined both offers, because she had no more money to
spend on the property and a cash contribution was not disclosed when the mortgage
lender suggested the deed in lieu of foreclosure. Currently, the mortgage lender is suing
Applicant for foreclosure. Likewise, Applicant is suing the mortgage lender for bad-faith
loan servicing practices by engaging in civil extortion during the deed in lieu of
foreclosure process. Applicant’s attorney believes the matter will be resolved by
settlement, but it will take some time as the mortgage lender has been slow to act. 
Applicant presented clear and substantial evidence that she made a good-faith
effort to resolve the mortgage loan, the matter is now being resolved through a lawsuit
in state court, and she is not otherwise financially overextended.  Accordingly, based on2
the evidence as a whole, I conclude the security concerns are resolved under the
following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d).  
The concerns over Applicant’s problematic mortgage loan 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 or vice
versa. 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. 
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge