1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-07856 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrea Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On April 29, 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 23, 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 paid or settled all of his 
consumer debts listed in the SOR. He also established that the delinquent mortgage 
debt was the responsibility of his ex-wife pursuant to their legal separation agreement. 
Despite his lack of responsibility for the mortgage debt, he provided documentary 
 
2 
 
evidence showing that his ex-wife was making payments on the debt. Applicant’s 
evidence established that he is in good 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(e).  
 
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 whether 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