1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 ----------------------------------- )  ISCR Case No. 17-01529 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se   
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF 86 format) on April 26, 2016. This document is commonly known as a 
security clearance application. Thereafter, on June 7, 2017, after reviewing the 
application and the 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 is similar to a complaint. It detailed the factual reasons for the 
action under the security guidelines known as Guideline B for foreign influence and 
Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR; his answer 
was mixed; and he requested a hearing.  
 
                                                          
1 This case is adjudicated under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the National 
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or 
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), effective June 8, 2017.   
 
 
2 
 
The case was assigned to me on December 13, 2017. At the April 12, 2018 
hearing, Department Counsel withdrew the Guideline B foreign influence allegations 
involving Applicant’s half-brother and half-sister, both of whom are citizens of and 
residents in Thailand. The transcript of the hearing was received on April 19, 2018. 
Thereafter, I proposed to the parties that the case was appropriate for a summary 
disposition in Applicant’s favor.2 Department Counsel had ten days to object to a 
summary disposition, and on April 26, 2018, Department Counsel stated they had no 
objection. 
 
Under Guideline F, the SOR concerns two matters, a mortgage foreclosure from 
several years ago and, more recently, past-due child support payments. The evidence 
shows that in 2009, Applicant, who was then married to his first wife, was laid off from a 
longtime job he had from June 1997 to September 2009. He was then unemployed 
through the balance of 2009. The resulting financial hardship led to Applicant defaulting 
on the mortgage loan and the subsequent foreclosure.3 This event occurred during the 
midst of the national downturn in the residential real estate market.  
 
Applicant divorced in 2013. The past-due child-support payments occurred when 
he lost a job in September 2015 and was unemployed through April 2016, a period of 
about nine months. He married for a second time in May 2016. He resumed making 
child-support payments upon his re-employment. He presented reliable documentation 
from the state’s child-support services showing that his child-support account is in good 
standing with an arrears balance of $0.00. His current financial situation appears to be 
stable based on very good credit scores as well as an April 2018 credit report showing 
no public records, no repossession accounts, no charge-off accounts, no foreclosure 
accounts, no bankruptcies, and no collection accounts.  
 
In light of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Applicant presented 
sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by him or proven 
by Department Counsel. I also conclude that the security concerns are resolved under 
the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), and (d). I further 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.  
 
 
                                                          
2 A summary disposition is simply a procedural device that allows for a speedy, more streamlined 
decision when the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable clearance decision for an applicant and there 
are no foreseeable appellate issues.   
 
3 Although not binding or conclusive in this proceeding, it is nevertheless noted that the foreclosure 
occurred in a state that has an antideficiency statute that generally does not allow a mortgage lender to 
sue a borrower after the property has been sold at foreclosure. See Arizona Revised Statutes 33-814.G 
and 33-729.A. Assuming the mortgage lender issued a Form 1099-C to cancel any debt in existence after 
the sale of the property, neither Applicant nor his then spouse had a tax liability due to the provisions of 
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. Congress enacted this federal law in 2007 to give 
relief to taxpayers who had debt forgiveness as a result of a foreclosure or as a result of a short sale. The 
Act was extended several times and remained in effect through December 31, 2013.  
 
 
 
3 
 
For all the reasons discussed above, this case is decided for Applicant.   
 
  
 
Michael H. Leonard 
Administrative Judge