ISCR Case No. 16-02952.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02952 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

10/18/2017 ______________

______________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On October 20, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On May 15, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. 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.

While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, 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 September 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, as required.1

On July 25, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On August 15, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. On October 17, 2017, after reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I e-mailed 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 alleged allegations under Guideline F that were caused by a loss of income following his discharge from the Navy in 2013, and events beginning in 2011 that led to a contentious and costly divorce in 2015. He has paid or otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a clearance during his ten years in the Navy and 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 following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(e).

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, I 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. This case is decided for Applicant.

Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge

1 The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4 20170608.pdf.