1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-03901 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: 
 
On January 30, 2017, 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).1 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on February 21, 2017, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 20, 2017. The 
hearing was held as scheduled on June 20, 2017. On June 29, 2017, I proposed that 
this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department 
Counsel did not object.  
 
The SOR alleged a single debt in the amount of $20,587. Applicant presented 
documentation showing that the principal borrower had taken responsibility for the 
                                                          
1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this 
case under the previous AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using 
either set of AG.  
 
2 
 
delinquent debt for which Applicant had cosigned. The principal borrower was 
establishing a payment plan with the creditor. Based on the record evidence as a whole, 
I conclude that the security concerns are mitigated under the following mitigating 
conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(d) and 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 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.  
 
 
 
________________________ 
Robert E. Coacher 
Administrative Judge