1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-00665 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: [Redacted], Personal Representative 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
 
On April 14, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial 
Considerations.1 Applicant responded to the SOR on April 29, 2017, and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 25, 
2018. The hearing was held as scheduled on March 15, 2018. On September 7, 2018, 
after receiving supplemental post-hearing exhibits from Applicant, I proposed to the 
parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. 
Department Counsel did not object.2   
 
                                                          
1 This 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, 
which became effective on June 8, 2017. 
2 Emails dated September 7, 2018, from both parties indicating there were no objections to summary 
disposition in this case are marked as Hearing Exhibit I and are contained in the file.  
 
2 
 
Applicant is a 49-year-old, employee of a defense contractor. He served 26 years 
on active duty in the Navy and retired at the rank of senior chief petty officer. He is 
married and has two children and two step-children. (GE 1, Tr. 121.) 
  
The SOR alleged Applicant was indebted on a mortgage account that was past 
due in the amount of $97,137. Applicant documented that this debt was caused by a 
series of unfortunate events that were beyond his control, including multiple medical 
emergencies and a mold infestation of their family home due to water damage. (Tr. 
130.) He has been in constant contact with the creditor since first becoming delinquent 
on the mortgage debt. In July 2018, the creditor finally approved his loan modification 
request and the account is now current. (Applicant Exhibit 1 though 53.) Applicant has 
completed financial counseling and there is little likelihood of recurrence.  
 
Mitigating conditions set out in AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) have been 
established by the evidence. There is no doubt about Applicant’s 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 the 
favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration 
to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that Applicant met his ultimate 
burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant him national security eligibility for access to classified information. This case is 
decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer Goldstein 
Administrative Judge