1 
  
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 17-01833 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
  
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny his eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant had two unpaid 
judgments, eight collection accounts, and five charged-off accounts, which totaled in 
excess of $28,000 in delinquent financial obligations. He has mitigated the financial 
considerations security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information 
is granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,1 on June 6, 2017, 
the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing financial considerations security 
                                                          
1 Executive Order 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 (Sept. 1, 2006 AG) effective 
within the DoD on September 1, 2006.  
 
 
2 
concerns. On July 19, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. On February 7, 2018, DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing 
scheduling a hearing that was conducted on February 27, 2018. 
 
 At the hearing, Department Counsel offered Government Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 
4. The exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant offered Ex. A 
through Ex. T, which were also admitted without objection. In May 2018, he submitted 
three additional documents, which were admitted as Ex. U through Ex. W. Applicant 
testified at the hearing as did seven witnesses on his behalf. DOHA received the hearing 
transcript (Tr.) on March 7, 2018. 
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence issued 
Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing the National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who 
require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold 
a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for 
all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s 
security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.2 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted, with explanation, the allegations in SOR paragraphs 1.a 
through 1.o. He admitted owing five charged-off accounts, eight collection accounts, and 
two judgments, which totaled $28,608. After a thorough review of the pleadings and 
exhibits, I make the following findings of fact: 
 
Applicant is a 36-year-old-team lead instructor working for a defense contractor 
since March 2016. (Tr. 55) He worked for other federal contractors since 2012. (Tr. 95) 
He seeks to retain a security clearance. From February 2006 through February 2012, he 
served in the U.S. Navy, and was promoted to the grade of E-6. (Tr. 57) The U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rates Applicant’s disability at 80 per cent due to post 
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Tr. 60) His disability pay is approximately $1,700 
monthly.  
 
In August 2015, Applicant was legally separated from his wife. (Ex. 2, Tr. 61) A 
final divorce cannot be granted until his wife completes a state required co-parenting 
class. He has offered to pay for his wife’s enrollment fee, but she has yet to take the 
course. (Tr. 61) He pays $550 a month for child support for his nine-year-old son. (Tr. 62)  
 
From an early age, Applicant always wanted to be in the military, and at age 17, 
his parents signed a waiver allowing him to join the Navy. (Tr. 58) In 2003, Applicant 
served on a ship in the North Arabian Gulf. (Tr. 59) In 2004, he volunteered for a squadron 
                                                          
2 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in 
this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf. 
  
 
3 
that boarded vessels in the North Arabian Gulf and the southern parts of Iraq looking for 
contraband. (Tr. 59) In 2007 and 2008, he was deployed with ground forces in Iraq calling 
in air strikes south of Baghdad. (Tr. 59) Applicant was unemployed from February to 
August 2012, after he left the military. (Tr. 63) He was also unemployed from July to 
September 2016. In 2016, after separating from his wife, he went to Afghanistan for a 
brief time, as a contractor, to earn income to pay off his delinquent accounts. (Tr. 59) After 
three or four months in Afghanistan, he was let go due to a lack of computer proficiency. 
(Tr. 64)  
 
Applicant’s financial problems started a year before he left the service and after 
his wife had left active duty. For the last three years he was in the service, he was on 
instructor duty, which required periods of him being in the field. (Tr. 65) While gone, his 
wife was supposed to pay the bills. When his wife left active duty, she said she would get 
a job or go back to school. She refused to do either. (Tr. 65) In 2008, when he returned 
from Iraq, he noticed his wife had started drinking in the mornings. (Tr. 65) When he left 
the service, his wife’s drinking increased.  
 
Applicant incurred a $5,541 charged-off account (SOR 1.a) resulting from a vehicle 
accident in which the vehicle was a total loss. The charged-off amount resulted from a 
gap in his insurance coverage. (Tr. 66) The creditor has since stated there was a mistake 
as to the gap insurance, and the debt would be removed from his credit report. (Ex. A, Tr. 
66) This charged-off account was never a valid debt. In July 2017, he paid the $83 medical 
debt (SOR 1.b). (Ex. B, Tr. 67) When he sent a check to the collection agency attempting 
to collect a $70 Wi-Fi account (SOR 1.c), the check was returned to him with instructions 
to make payment to the original creditor. (Ex. C, Tr. 68) He then sent a check paying the 
full amount to the original creditor. (Ex. D) He does not remember receiving a bill from the 
original creditor for this service before it was turned over to the collection agency. (Tr. 69) 
 
Applicant had three medical collection accounts: SOR 1.d ($34), SOR 1.e ($143), 
and SOR 1.f ($722), which were the result of treatment when Applicant fractured his 
ankle. (Tr. 70) He had medical insurance at the time of the injury, which should have paid 
for his treatment. (Tr.71) He sent money orders to cover the $143 and $722 debts. (Exs. 
E, F, and G). The collection agency was unable to process the $143 money order because 
the collection agency had closed the account. (Ex. E) As of July 19, 2017, the collection 
agency collecting the $722 debt indicated their records indicated the account was paid. 
(Ex. G and Ex. H) 
 
Since early 2016, Applicant has been in contact with the credit union attempting to 
resolve the $10,516 (SOR 1.g) charged-off debt. (Tr. 71) The debt resulted from a vehicle 
accident when another driver ran a red light and struck Applicant’s vehicle. This was a 
separate accident from the one listed above. He thought he had gap insurance to pay for 
the damage. (Tr. 72) In November 2017, the credit union offered to settle the debt, then 
$7,437, for $2,231. (Ex. I) He agreed to make six monthly payments of $371 each. (Ex. I 
and Ex. R) At the time of the hearing, he had made three of the six required payments. 
(Tr. 73) In March 2018, he made an additional $371 payment. (Ex. V)  
 
 
4 
The $369 debt (SOR 1.h) resulted from an old checking account. (Tr. 74) In July 
2017, Applicant paid the debt. (Ex. J) The $7,796 charged-off credit union account (SOR 
1. I) related to his wife’s vehicle. (Tr. 75) When purchased, his wife agreed to make the 
monthly payments on the car, and he did not learn she had failed to make the required 
payments until it was too late. (Ex. 2) It was repossessed during a period of time when he 
was unemployed. Since 2016, he has attempted to reach a settlement with the credit 
union. He incurred a $1,270 telephone collection account (SOR 1.j). In July 2017, the 
creditor offered to settle the matter for $423. (Ex. L, Tr. 77) He paid the amount the 
creditor sought, and the creditor removed the debt from his credit report. (Ex. K, Tr. 76) 
 
A credit union charged off a $984 debt (SOR 1.k). The creditor offered to settle the 
matter for $606, and Applicant accepted and paid the debt in July 2017. (Ex. M, Tr. 78) A 
homeowners’ association (HOA) obtained two judgments against him in the amounts of 
$331 (SOR 1.l) and $320 (SOR 1.m) for HOA dues. (Ex. 2) When the delinquent 
obligations were incurred, he was unemployed, and his VA disability payments had not 
commenced. (Tr. 80) His VA disability payments did not start until three years after he left 
the military. (Tr. 82, 91) He initially believed the two judgments were the same obligation 
and not two separate obligations. In July 2017, he paid the $320 judgment, and in January 
2018, he paid the $331 judgement. (Ex. R, Ex. S, Ex. U, Tr. 79) In January 2018, he 
accepted and paid the settlement offer by the collection agency relating to the $417 (SOR 
1.n) medical debt. (Ex. N, Tr. 79) In July 2017, he also paid the $12 medical debt (SOR 
1.o). (Ex. O, Tr. 79)  
 
Applicant knew he had some debts when he moved to a new state, but did not 
know the amounts owed until 2016, when he filled out his security questionnaire. (Tr. 81-
82) On his April 2016 Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), he 
listed he had more than $18,000 in delinquent obligations. (Ex. 1)  
 
Applicant knew that once he obtained the legal separation, his finances would 
improve. (Tr. 82) He has no continuing joint obligations with his wife. (Tr. 83) He is current 
on his rent, which he shares with a roommate, on his car payments on his 2005 and 2013 
vehicles, on his utilities, and his child support payments. (Tr. 84) His monthly take-home 
pay between his job and his VA disability payments is approximately $5,000. (Tr. 86) On 
April 24, 2016, he received a certificate of counseling for credit counseling from a group 
that complied with the provisions of 11 U.S.C §§ 109(h) and 111. (SOR Answer, Tr. 87) 
He has approximately $25,000 in his 401(k) retirement plan. (Tr. 88) Since his separation, 
he has been able to pay off his debts, put money in savings, and live comfortably. (Tr. 89) 
His current credit is “fair” with a credit score of 645. (Ex. W) In July 2017, his credit score 
was 594 indicating it “Needs Work.” (SOR Answer) 
 
Character Statements 
 
Applicant has been in constant contact with his chain of command, his supervisors, 
and the facility security officer (FSO) about his delinquent obligations. (Tr. 12) The FSO, 
has known Applicant for almost three years, states before Applicant’s delinquent debt 
was an issue, Applicant came to him and told him that he was going through a divorce 
 
5 
and would likely be experiencing financial problems. (Tr. 19) The FSO says Applicant is 
a “topnotch trusted employee.” (Tr. 20) The FSO had 28 ½ years of military service in the 
Army and Marine Corps, retiring as a sergeant first class, E-7. (Tr. 22) The project lead, 
who has known Applicant for four years and been his direct supervisor for two years, 
states Applicant is professional, polite, and respectful instructor of students. He has never 
received a negative comment about Applicant. (Tr. 23) The project lead served 21 years 
in the Air Force, retiring as a master sergeant (E-7). (Tr. 26) 
 
When deployed to Iraq in 2004, Applicant worked with an intelligence officer, who 
was also the FSO. He is now a retired chief, (E-7) who has known Applicant for 15 years. 
(Tr. 28) He and Applicant worked on a boarding team in the Arabian Gulf boarding ships 
looking for contraband. (Tr. 29) He has a great deal of trust in Applicant. A doctor and 
former roommate states that trust was extremely important to him in selecting a 
roommate. (Tr. 36) They were roommates for 3 ½ years. The doctor trusted Applicant to 
watch his son. If Applicant said something, he would do it, and he stated that Applicant 
was a person who could always be counted on. (Tr. 36)  
 
In 2007, Applicant and another individual worked as contractors south of Baghdad. 
(Tr. 39) The individual is a flight lead and observer/instructor, who works with Applicant. 
He believes Applicant is a person of integrity and he has no questions or qualms about 
Applicant having a security clearance. (Tr. 41) The individual had been a member of the 
Air Force assigned to the Army working close air support. (Tr. 43) A co-worker, who was 
on active duty for ten years with two deployments to Iraq and three deployments to 
Afghanistan and is still a member of the Guard in air traffic control, trusts Applicant. (Tr. 
47)  
 
A woman whose son is good friends with Applicant’s son and who has known 
Applicant 2 ½ years, states she was initially more acquainted with Applicant’s wife. (Tr. 
51) She says Applicant’s wife drank heavily, had excessive spending habits, and had 
problems remembering things due to impaired judgment. (Tr. 51) Alcohol had impaired 
his wife’s ability to remember things such as picking up their son from school. (Tr. 51) 
She believes Applicant to be an excellent father. (Tr. 51)  
 
Applicant worked extra hours, extra shifts, and extra training operations to 
generate more income to cover basic day-to-day expenses such as rent because his wife 
would “spend money with reckless abandon.” (Tr. 52) The woman said Applicant’s wife 
would spend excessively, refusing to keep ATM withdrawal receipts, or receipts for items 
she purchased. (Tr. 52, 53) His wife could not recall how she spent the money or which 
bills had been paid. (Tr. 52) When Applicant was away from home, training soldiers in the 
field, it was his wife’s job to pay the rent, pay the utility bills, make her monthly car 
payment, and pick up their son from school. (Tr. 53) This she failed to do resulting in the 
school calling the woman. (Tr. 53) The woman stated Applicant’s wife’s main focus was 
making sure she had liquor. 
 
 
 
 
6 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in evaluating 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 
the adjudication process is an examination of a sufficient period and a careful weight of a 
number of variables of an individual’s life to make an affirmative determination that the 
individual is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the whole-person concept.  
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have 
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence 
contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship 
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government 
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to 
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk 
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of 
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination of the loyalty of the applicant 
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access 
to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 
7 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to 
protect classified or sensitive information . . . An individual who is financially 
overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal acts or other 
questionable acts to generate funds. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding 
classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides 
an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed upon 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a security clearance. Applicant is not required to be debt free, 
but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations. 
 
AG ¶ 19 includes two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of 
not meeting financial obligations.” 
 
Security concerns are established under AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) because Applicant 
had a two unpaid judgments, eight collection accounts, and five charged-off delinquent 
accounts, which totaled in excess of $28,000. The burden shifted to Applicant to produce 
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. (Directive ¶ 
E3.1.15) 
 
 Four of the seven Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 20 
are potentially applicable: 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt 
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond 
the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, 
unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;  
 
 
8 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from 
a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling 
service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved 
or is under control, and 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay the 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve the debts. 
 
 In 2012, Applicant left the service. However, it was three years before the VA 
determined he was 80 percent disabled, and he began receiving VA disability payments.. 
He was unemployed in 2012 and in 2016. He is legally separated from his wife. Prior to 
the separation, his wife was supposed to pay accounts while Applicant was away from 
home as part of his job. Not only did she not pay the bills as they came due, but her 
memory was impaired to the point she did not remember what bills had been paid, what 
items had been purchased, or how much had been withdrawn from their bank accounts.  
 
 Applicant has paid the majority of the SOR debt, is making payment on one debt, 
and is attempting to reach a settlement agreement on the remaining debt, i.e., the debt 
from his wife’s repossessed car. He provided evidence of having paid four of the six 
payments necessary to honor the $2,231 settlement agreement for the debt listed in SOR 
1.g. Having paid his other delinquent obligations and made four of six payments on the 
debt, I believe he will make the last two payments. AG ¶ 20(d) applies to the debts paid 
or settled and paid.  
 
 Applicant’s financial problems were contributed to by his periods of unemployment 
and his wife’s spending habits. He is now employed and legally separated. Since his 
separation, he has been able to pay off his debts, put money in savings, and live 
comfortably. He is current on his rent, his car payments, his utilities, and his child support 
payments. His monthly take-home pay between his job and his VA disability payments is 
approximately $5,000. He has approximately $25,000 in his 401(k) retirement plan and 
his credit rating is “fair” with a credit score of 645. Now that he is legally separated, his 
wife is unlikely to effect his finances in the future. Applicant has acted responsibly and his 
conduct does not cast doubt on is current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. 
AG ¶ 20(a) applies. 
 
 Applicant’s periods of unemployment and legal separation are conditions largely 
beyond his control. He has acted responsibly under the circumstances by contacting his 
creditors to arrange payment on his delinquent obligations. AG ¶ 20(b) applies. He took 
a financial counseling course and there are clear indications his financial problems are 
being resolved and are under control. AG ¶ 20(c) applies because the financial counseling 
was through a legitimate and credible source such as a non-profit credit counseling 
service.  
 
An Applicant is not required to be debt-free or to develop a plan for paying off all 
debts immediately or simultaneously, but he is required to act responsibly given his 
 
9 
circumstances and develop a reasonable plan to address his delinquent obligations, 
accompanied by evidence of a serious intent to effectuate the plan. This he has done. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate 
an Applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and 
all the relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation 
and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; 
(8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence.  
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guideline F in the whole-person analysis. Applicant listed a number of delinquent 
accounts on his e-QIP. He has been in constant contact with his chain of command, his 
supervisors, and the facility security officer about his delinquent obligations. He went to 
his FSO to inform him that he was going through a divorce and would likely be 
experiencing financial problems. 
 
From an early age, Applicant always wanted to be in the military, and at age 17, 
his parents signed a waiver allowing him to join the military. I have considered his military 
service including his 2003-shipboard service on a ship in the North Arabian Gulf. In 2004, 
he volunteered for a squadron that boarded vessels in the North Arabian Gulf and the 
southern parts of Iraq looking for contraband. In 2007 and 2008, he was deployed with 
ground forces in Iraq calling in air strikes south of Baghdad. (Tr. 59) His service in Iraq, a 
qualified hazardous duty area, entitled him to receive hostile fire pay or imminent danger 
pay. In 2016, after separating from his wife, he went to Afghanistan as a contractor in 
direct support of military operations in a combat zone or qualified hazardous duty area, 
to earn income to pay off his delinquent accounts. His service to the country resulted in 
an 80% VA disability rating. I have great respect for anyone going in harm’s way in support 
of the United States. 
 
10 
A number of FSOs, supervisors, co-workers, and friends came forth at the personal 
appearance to express the high esteem in which they held Applicant. They state Applicant 
has continuously demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness. Supervisors have many 
tasks, but evaluating those individuals assigned to them is one of those important duties. 
Their character evaluations and assessments are often more accurate because they have 
observed Applicants over longer periods of time and under a variety of events and 
stresses. His supervisors laud Applicant’s performance, trustworthiness, reliability, and 
dedication. Their positive assessment support approval of Applicant’s security clearance. 
 
The issue is not simply whether all Applicant’s debts are paid—it is whether his 
financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. See 
AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(b). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Accordingly, I conclude that it is 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue his eligibility 
for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Financial Considerations Security Concern:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.o:    For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
  
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to 
classified information. National security eligibility is granted. 
 
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge