ISCR Case No. 16-03679.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-03679 ) Applicant for a Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

April 12, 2017

______________

______________

Goldstein, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) on March 21, 2016. On December 30, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 23, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on March 6, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 3, 2017. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A and B, which were also admitted without objection.

After reviewing the record, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.1 Applicant did not object. Department Counsel provided written notice on April 4, 2017, that Department Counsel did not object. (Hearing Exhibit I.) 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 Guidelines J and F.

Under Guideline J, Applicant was charged with “improper display of license” in August 2014. He failed to appear in court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He testified he had moved out of state and thought the ticket had been paid prior to the move. Once he learned of the outstanding warrant, he contacted the court and paid the outstanding fine. He presented documentation that showed the fine was resolved. (AE B.) The criminal conduct security concerns are resolved under AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d).

Under Guideline F, Applicant was alleged to be indebted on three debts held by the same creditor, in the total amount of $13,715. He presented documentation that shows all three debts have been paid. (AE A.) I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d).

The concerns over Applicant’s history of financial problems and criminal conduct 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 whether the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. 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 a security clearance. This case is decided for Applicant. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge

1 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.