1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 --------------------------------- )  ISCR Case No. 17-03280 
 ) 
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 March 6, 2016. This document is commonly known as a 
security clearance application. Thereafter, on October 20, 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 guideline known as 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 January 10, 2018. The hearing was held as 
scheduled on April 10, 2018. The transcript of the hearing was received on April 19, 
2018. After the hearing was completed, 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. 
 
The evidence shows that Applicant’s foreclosure in 2011, approximately seven 
years ago, was brought about by financial hardship that was largely beyond his control. 
He had a job layoff in 2008 followed by a three-month period of unemployment. He then 
accepted a job in a neighboring state, but he became unable to work in about October 
2010 due to carpal tunnel syndrome. He returned to his home state and was able in 
time to qualify for workers’ compensation. He did not return to full-time work until about 
March 2012.  
 
Applicant presented reliable documentation (Forms 1099-C and an account 
statement from the mortgage lender) showing the foreclosure was resolved in 2011, and 
the account balance for the mortgage loan is $0.00.3 Likewise, an April 2016 credit 
report shows that the foreclosure was redeemed and that the creditor grantor reclaimed 
collateral to settle the default. In addition, he presented reliable documentation showing 
that he paid two minor medical collection accounts for $93 and $230. And he presented 
reliable documentation showing that he does not owe a third medical collection account 
for $2,141. His current financial situation appears to be stable as reflected in a January 
2018 credit report that shows no public records, no repossessions, no charge-off 
accounts, no foreclosure accounts, no bankruptcies, no collection accounts, and no 
past-due 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), (d), and (e). 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. In addition, the Forms 1099-C show that the mortgage lender cancelled about $42,000 in 
debt, but neither Applicant nor his 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