1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-02721 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: David Hayes Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge: 
 
 
On November 17, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued to Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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. On June 8, 2017, new AGs were implemented and are 
effective for decisions issued after that date.1  
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on December 20, 2016, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 1, 2017. 
The hearing was held as scheduled on June 6, 2017. On June 13, 2017, I proposed to 
the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Neither party objected.  
                                                          
1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new 
Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case were 
considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines. 
 
2 
 
Applicant incurred numerous debts when his successful joint business with his 
wife was abandoned because the premises they rented had mold and the landlord 
refused to take remedial action to eradicate it. Applicant’s wife suffered irreversible lung 
damage. Lawsuits are pending to compensate Applicant for his financial losses and 
medical expenses. Although he was advised not to pay creditors until the lawsuits are 
adjudicated or settled, Applicant has taken responsibility for the delinquent debts and 
has been systematically resolving them. Applicant participated in financial counseling.  
 
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. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Applicant mitigated the 
financial considerations security concerns under the following mitigating conditions: AG 
¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d) and 20(e).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s financial problems no longer 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.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Carol G. Ricciardello 
Administrative Judge