1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-02533 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
February 16, 2018 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On December 27, 2016, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended 
(Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline F.1 The SOR further informed 
Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD adjudicators 
could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. 
 
On February 11, 2017, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR (RSOR), 
and requested that the case be decided after a hearing before an administrative judge. 
The case was assigned to this administrative judge on June 12, 2017. The Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 26, 2017, 
scheduling the hearing for September 6, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled. 
                                                          
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 was 
considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
 
On February 5, 2018, I proposed to the parties by email that this case was 
appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant and Department 
Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter. Neither party submitted any objection.  
 
Findings of Fact 
  
Applicant is 57. He is a widower, and he was married from 1979 to 2003. He has 
three children. He has been employed in the defense industry since 1981, and by his 
present employer since 1996, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection 
with his employment in the defense sector. 
 
The SOR includes one allegation, 1.a., which alleges that Applicant is indebted to 
a creditor for a past due account in the approximate amount of $67,242. Applicant 
admitted this allegation in his RSOR.  
 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he purchased a house in 2010, and he 
could afford the payments based on his income, which included overtime income. At 
some point the overtime decreased and he had difficulty making his payments. In June 
2017, he entered into a loan modification with a new creditor that owned the title to his 
house. The arrangement was that he would make three initial payments of $3,359.98, 
for the months of August, September and October 2017. At the time of the hearing, he 
had made two payments in August and September, and he planned to make a third 
payment in October. Applicant's understanding is that once he has made the third 
payment the loan will be modified at a reasonable interest rate. At the time of the 
hearing, his plan is to remain in his house and to continue to pay off his mortgage. 
Applicant testified that he currently has no credit card debt, nor is he behind on any 
other debts. He has a car loan which will be paid off by the end of 2018. Applicant 
submitted a post-hearing document establishing that he has paid the first three 
payments according to his plan.  
 
 I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. Therefore, I 
conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating 
conditions under Guideline F: AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b) and (d).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
The concerns over Applicant’s indebtedness 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 or not the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable 
evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I 
conclude that Applicant has met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him national security eligibility and 
access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant. 
 
 
 
Martin H. Mogul 
Administrative Judge