DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
    )            ISCR Case No. 17-00826 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
On August 25, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On April 20, 2017, 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 (AGs), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 
2017, apply here. These AGs replaced the AGs that were effective September 1, 2006, when the SOR 
was issued in this case. The AGs were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, 
Appendix H (2006). A copy of the new AGs was provided directly to Applicant in this case. I have 
considered this case under both sets of AGs and my conclusion would be the same under either AGs.   
 
2 
 
 
On May 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On June 22, 2017, the hearing 
was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence, I 
e-mailed Department Counsel indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary 
disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.  
 
The SOR allegations consist primarily of a payday loan with exorbitant interest 
rate and penalties, and delinquent debts to telecommunications companies that 
Applicant was unable to pay. He ascribes these delinquencies to a period of 
unemployment and some bad financial decisions he made previously. Since obtaining 
full-time employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has 
otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a security clearance 
during his 15 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy. Applicant has a 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(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 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. Kilmartin 
Administrative Judge