1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-05244 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Bryan J. Olmos Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge: 
 
On March 25, 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 2, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on July 28, 2016. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on September 20, 2016. On December 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 finances were adversely affected by medical issues, unemployment, 
underemployment, and being a single parent. The Statement of Reasons alleges 2 
wage garnishments totaling $23,939 for defaulted student loans, 13 medical debts, a 
 
2 
 
$757 judgment, 2 telecommunications debts totaling $229, and about $10,000 owed on 
the loan for a repossessed car. Applicant admitted responsibility for all the debts. 
 
The wage garnishments of 25% of her income prevented Applicant from paying 
her other debts, but she resisted seeking an amendment to the garnishments because 
she knew the forced payments would reduce her debts quickly. She planned to pay her 
other debts after the garnishments were lifted. From December 2015 through December 
9, 2016, her wages were garnished $9,659. One garnishment was released because 
the loan was paid. Applicant appealed the second garnishment, and it was either 
lowered or released. Applicant credibly testified that she will use the freed-up income to 
pay her debts. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the security 
concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(c).  
 
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