DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 16-01769 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
On September 21, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National 
Security Positions (SF-86). On June 4, 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 him eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR 
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as 
Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR and 
requested a hearing. 
                                                          
1
 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, 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 replaced the guidelines found in Enclosure 2 to the Directive prior to 
September 1, 2006 and a copy of these guidelines was provided directly to the Applicant in this case.     
 
2 
 
 
On September 26, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On November 16, 
2016, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing 
transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed the parties indicating that 
this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did 
not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided 
written notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
The SOR allegations consist primarily of uncovered medical debts that 
Applicant was unable to pay as a result of unemployment. Since obtaining full-time 
employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has otherwise 
resolved all of his debts. Applicant has successfully held a security clearance since 
1975 and has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness.  Based on the record 
evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient 
evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline F. I also 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 financial considerations security concerns are resolved in whole or in part under 
the 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 or vice 
versa. 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 him eligibility for access to classified 
information. This case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
Robert J. Tuider 
Administrative Judge