1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [REDACTED] )  ISCR Case No. 15-06184 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HESS, Stephanie C., Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 19, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging 
concerns under the financial considerations guideline.1 Applicant answered the SOR 
and requested a hearing to establish his eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
 On September 14, 2016, I convened a hearing. After I received the transcript, I 
reviewed the record in its entirety. I then provided written notice to the parties of my 
intent to resolve the case through a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel indicated that the Government had no objections. (See Appellate 
Exhibit I.)  
                                                            
1 This action was taken under Executive Order (E.O.) 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Applicant’s past financial problems were primarily attributable to matters beyond 
his control. Specifically, Applicant’s first wife was financially irresponsible, incurred 
significant debt, and contributed little to the couple’s financial obligations. Upon 
separating, Applicant’s wife remained in the marital home but failed to pay the 
mortgage, and did not disclose this to Applicant.  Applicant discovered the mortgage 
arrears after his wife abandoned the home. He took all reasonable actions to and was 
able to modify the mortgage, but not the equity line of credit because his wife refused to 
sign the required documents. Due to other financial obligations including child support, 
he ultimately lost the home to foreclosure in 2011. The deficiency balance on the home 
equity loan was charged off, is not in active collection, and does not appear on his 
September 2016 credit report. The mortgage lender for Applicant’s current mortgage 
loan determined that he was not obligated on the line of credit. Applicant has not 
incurred any substantial delinquent debt since 2011. He has satisfied, successfully 
disputed, or otherwise resolved all the SOR debts, except the $201 debt listed in SOR ¶ 
1.d. He has contacted this creditor for verification of the amount due. He has taken 
significant steps to improve his financial situation, including moving to another state to 
reduce his cost of living, implementing and maintaining a written budget, and living 
within his means. He regularly contributes to his 401(k) account and a savings account. 
 
 Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged 
in the SOR under Guideline F. I 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 
mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).  
 
          Applicant’s history of financial problems does 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, including Applicant’s honorable military 
service. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his burden of persuasion to show 
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to 
classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
 
Stephanie C. Hess 
Administrative Judge