DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-00601
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Catie E. Young, Esq.
                        February 3, 2017                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
JUDGE, Martin H. Mogul, Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86
Format) on February 1, 2013. On January 25, 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.  The SOR1
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the Security Guideline F for Financial
Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,1
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.    
1
The case was assigned to me on May 23, 2016. The hearing was held as
scheduled on July 19, 2016. On December 8, 2016, I proposed to the parties by email
that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.
Department Counsel and Applicant’s counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and
written notice was provided that Department Counsel did not object. 
The allegation concerning Guideline F was that Applicant was indebted for a
second mortgage account that had been charged-off in the amount of $91,354, which
remained delinquent. 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. I considered that the evidence established that Applicant has only had one
delinquent debt, which resulted in a foreclosure of his primary residence in 2009, and
that before and since that year, Applicant has satisfied all of his other debts. Applicant’s
delinquent debt arose because a home he purchased in 2005, while in the United
States Navy, lost more than half its value in the recession of 2008, and Applicant could
not afford to make the payments toward the mortgage. When Applicant found himself
with a debt that he was unable to satisfy, he acted responsibly, first by attempting a loan
modification, and then by attempting to sell his home through a short-sale. Both
attempts were not successful, and the home was foreclosed. 
Applicant submitted a significant number of documents, including but not limited
to: a certificate and worksheets showing he has taken an online Credit Counseling and
Budget Brief Action Plan course, a Personal Financial Statement, Applicant’s retirement
saving’s plan, his current income information, and a copy of his current bank statement.
These documents establish that Applicant is able to resolve all of his current debts in a
timely manner, and that he is unlikely to have financial difficulties in the future.
Therefore, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following
mitigating conditions under Guideline F: AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), (c),  and (d). 
The concerns over Applicant’s one delinquent debt 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 or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable
evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I
conclude that Applicant has 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. 
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge 
2