DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ADP1 Case No. 16-01415 
) 
Applicant for a Public Trust Position ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
February 28, 2017  
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
Goldstein, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on August 20, 2015. On August 21, 2016, after reviewing the application and 
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the 
trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning 
Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 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) effective 
within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 29, 2016, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 5, 
2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on February 7, 2017. The Government offered 
Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection. Applicant 
testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through D, which were also 
1 The SOR was amended at hearing to reflect that this was an ADP case and not an ISCR case. 
admitted without objection. The record was left open for receipt of additional 
documentation. On February 21, 2017, Applicant presented AE E, which was admitted 
without objection.  
 
After reviewing the record, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate 
for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.2 Applicant did not object. Department 
Counsel provided written notice on February 21, 2017, that Department Counsel did not 
object. (Hearing Exhibit I.)  
 
Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in December 2013. All of his listed debts but 
his tax liens were discharged in 2014. He remained indebted to a state government for 
two tax liens totaling $8,985, and to the Federal government on a 2011 tax lien totaling 
$11,023. However, he presented documentation that shows all state and Federal tax liens 
have been fully resolved. 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. In particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved 
under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), and 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 whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice 
versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept.  
 
 Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to 
show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access 
to sensitive information. This case is decided for Applicant. Eligibility for access to 
sensitive information is granted. 
 
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge 
                                                          
2 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision 
of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from 
the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.