DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 17-01233 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge: 
 
On May 6, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On May 23, 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 20, 2018, the case was assigned to me. On May 10, 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 then provided 
timely written notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant’s SOR listed seven allegations consisting primarily of consumer and 
credit card debt under Guideline F. Department Counsel withdrew one of the SOR 
allegations at the hearing leaving six allegations. Applicant’s financial difficulties stem 
from uncovered medical bills and travel costs associated with securing medical 
treatment for his infant son. Applicant has since regained control of his finances and 
has paid or is in an established payment plan for each of the remaining six debts.  
 
 Applicant successfully held a security clearance during his eight years 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) through (d).  
 
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