1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Redacted]  )  ISCR Case No. 17-00943 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Julie Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on August 8, 2016. On April 
27, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) 
sent her a statement of reasons (SOR), alleging security concerns under Guideline F 
(Financial Considerations). The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 
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, 2006.1 Applicant timely 
answered the SOR and requested a hearing. 
 
The case was assigned to me on December 12, 2017, and I conducted the 
hearing as scheduled on January 17, 2018. On the same day, I notified Department 
                                                          
1 Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), was issued on December 10, 2016, revising the 2006 
adjudicative guidelines for all adjudicative decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. The SEAD 4 revision 
of the adjudicative guidelines did not affect my recommended decision in this case. 
 
 
2 
 
Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department 
Counsel did not object.  
 
The SOR alleged three delinquent debts, which Applicant admitted, thereby 
establishing the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability to satisfy debts) and 
19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant’s debts were caused by 
periods of unemployment and underemployment. She presented documentary 
evidence that she paid one debt in full and was making payments pursuant to payment 
agreements for the other two debts, thereby establishing the mitigating conditions in 
AG ¶¶ 20(b) (conditions beyond her control) and 20(d) (good-faith effort to repay 
creditors).  
 
I conclude that Applicant has met her burden of persuasion to show that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified 
information. Clearance is granted.  
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge