ISCR Case No. 16-01218.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ------------------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 16-01218 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/05/2017 ______________

______________

LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 format) on May 7, 2015. This document is commonly known as a security clearance application. Thereafter, on October 6, 2016, after reviewing the application and the 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 is similar to a complaint. It detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline F for financial considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR; he denied the three delinquent debts alleged in the SOR on the basis that the debts were resolved; and he requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on February 7, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on April 25, 2017. After the hearing was completed, I proposed to the parties that the case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.2 Department Counsel had ten days to object to a summary disposition, and on May 1, 2017, Department Counsel stated they had no objection. The transcript of the hearing was received on May 4, 2017.

The pertinent facts are as follows: Applicant, a retired U.S. Air Force master sergeant, experienced financial problems resulting in the three delinquent debts in the SOR. He had financial problems due to an unexpected job layoff in 2012, which was followed by periods of unemployment and underemployment until he secured his current job with a defense contractor in 2015. He presented reliable documentation showing the charged-off second mortgage loan for $89,522 was paid in full in May 2016; the charged-off credit card account for $437 was satisfied in May 2016; and the charged-off credit card account for $4,695 was paid as of October 2016.

In light of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by him or proven by Department Counsel. I also conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d). I further 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.

Michael H. Leonard Administrative Judge

1 This action was taken under Executive Order (E.O.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, as well as Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 2 A summary disposition is simply a procedural device that allows for a speedy, more streamlined decision when the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable clearance decision for an applicant and there are no foreseeable appellate issues.