DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 17-03249 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 29, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On December 20, 2017, after reviewing the application and 
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) 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. 
                                                          
1This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 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), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 
     
 
2 
 
 
On March 22, 2018, the case was assigned to me. On May 11, 2018, the 
hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, 
evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I emailed the parties indicating that this case 
was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not 
object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written 
notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant’s SOR listed two allegations under Guideline F for failing to file his 
Federal and state income tax returns for 2013 and 2014. Applicant submitted evidence 
that he suffered from debilitating depression after a series of significant personal 
tragedies after returning from a “bad deployment” in Iraq. Among the many challenges 
facing him, he discovered his former wife failed to file their tax joint returns while he 
was deployed. Applicant has since regained control of his personal and professional 
life, filed his back taxes, and is managing his finances in a responsible manner. 
 
 Applicant successfully held a security clearance for approximately 26 years 
that includes 20 years of honorable service in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has an 
excellent 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), (b), and (g).  
 
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, 
Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant his eligibility for access to classified information. This 
case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
Robert Tuider 
Administrative Judge