1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-06479 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrea Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On April 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 May 28, 2016, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on September 28, 2016. 
The hearing was held as scheduled on January 11, 2017. On January 18, 2017, I 
proposed that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant established through documentation that he has consistently made 
$1,000 monthly student loan payments for an extended period. He also documented 
settlement of his credit card debt. His 2009 bankruptcy resulted from his divorce and 
debts incurred by his ex-wife. Applicant’s evidence established that he is in good 
 
2 
 
financial standing. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that the 
security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) 
through 20(d).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems 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. I also 
gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that he 
met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge