ISCR Case No. 17-00826.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00826 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/12/2017 ______________

______________

KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

On August 25, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On April 20, 2017, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 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. On May 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On June 22, 2017, the hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript and evidence, I e-mailed Department Counsel indicating that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

The SOR allegations consist primarily of a payday loan with exorbitant interest rate and penalties, and delinquent debts to telecommunications companies that Applicant was unable to pay. He ascribes these delinquencies to a period of unemployment and some bad financial decisions he made previously. Since obtaining full-time employment, he has regained control of his finances and is paying or has otherwise resolved all of his debts. Applicant successfully held a security clearance during his 15 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy. Applicant has a 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 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. Kilmartin Administrative Judge

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AGs), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 2017, apply here. These AGs replaced the AGs that were effective September 1, 2006, when the SOR was issued in this case. The AGs were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). A copy of the new AGs was provided directly to Applicant in this case. I have considered this case under both sets of AGs and my conclusion would be the same under either AGs.