ISCR Case No. 24-01775

__________ __________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-01775 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Sakeena Farhath, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/25/2025

WESLEY, ROGER C. Administrative Judge Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, Applicant did not mitigate financial considerations concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position is denied. Statement of the Case On November 15, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjudication Services (DCSA CAS) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing reasons why under the financial considerations guideline the DCSA CAS could not make the preliminary affirmative determination of eligibility for granting a security clearance, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a security clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. The action was taken under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960); Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6 Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, (January 2, 1992) (Directive); and Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), effective June 8, 2017.

Applicant responded to the SOR on December 2, 2024, and requested that her case be resolved on the written record without a hearing. Applicant received the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 17, 2025, and elected not to respond to the FORM. This case was assigned to me on June 5, 2025. The Government’s case consisted of seven exhibits that were admitted without objection as Items 1-7. Summary of Pleadings Under Guideline F, Applicant allegedly accumulated nine delinquent consumer debts exceeding $45,,000. Allegedly, Applicant’s delinquent debts have not been resolved and remain outstanding. In Applicant’s response to the SOR, she admitted most of the listed debts in the SOR. She denied the allegations covered by SOR ¶¶ 1.g and 1.i, claiming mitigating circumstances. For explanations and clarifications regarding her admitted debts, she claimed mitigating circumstances associated with her marriage separation, the COVID- 19 pandemic, and her father’s cancer diagnosis. (Item 2)

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance. Allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by Applicant are incorporated and adopted as relevant and material findings. Additional findings follow. Background Applicant married in March 2011 and separated in October 2020. (Item 3) She has one adult child (age 23) from another relationship. She reported no educational or military service credits. (Item 3) Since November 2023, Applicant has worked for her as a painter. (Item 3) Between 2017 and 2022, she worked for various employers in assorted lines of work. She reported multiple periods of unemployment between 2010 and 2025. She has never held a security clearance. (Item 3) Applicant’s Finances Between 2021 and 2023, Applicant accumulated nine delinquent consumer accounts exceeding $45,000. She attributed his debts to ongoing financial hardships highlighted by her marriage separation that has left her as the sole provider for her herself and her son. (Item 2) Compounding her struggles with her finances as a single parent have been the unexpected loss of her father from diagnosed cancer, the COVID- 19 pandemic, and her unstable work history. (Item 2) To da

te, she has been unable to make any headway with her debts. In the personal financial statement she provided, Applicant reported net monthly income of $2,200, monthly expenses of $2,960, and monthly debt obligations of $553.

(Item 7) She reported a net monthly remainder of a negative $1,313. For reported assets, she listed bank savings of $250 and nothing else.

By virtue of the jurisprudential principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988), “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” As Commander in Chief, “the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Egan. at 527. Eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted “upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The AGs list guidelines to be considered by judges in the decision-making process covering DOHA cases. These guidelines take into account factors that could create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as well as considerations that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. These AGs include conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying (disqualifying conditions), if any, and all of the conditions that could mitigate security concerns, if any. They must be considered before deciding whether or not a security clearance should be granted, continued, or denied. Although, the guidelines do not require judges to place exclusive reliance on the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the guidelines in arriving at a decision. In addition to the relevant AGs, judges must take into account the pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in ¶ 2(a) of the AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial, commonsense decision based on a careful consideration of the pertinent guidelines within the context of the whole person. The adjudicative process is designed to examine a sufficient period of an applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be made about whether the applicant is an acceptable security risk. When evaluating an applicant’s conduct, the relevant guidelines are to be considered together with the following ¶ 2(d) factors: (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 of the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following individual guidelines are pertinent herein: Financial Considerations The Concern: Failure or inability 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 or regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal acts or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . . AG ¶ 18. Burdens of Proof The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. 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 about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865, Feb. 20, 1960, § 7. See also Exec. Or. 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995), § 3.1. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the per

sonal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his [or her] security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

Security concerns are raised over Applicant’s accumulation of nine delinquent debts (exceeding $30,000) that raise trust, reliability, and judgment concerns about her current and future ability to manage her finances safely and responsibly. These concerns are addressed below. Financial concerns Applicant’s accumulated delinquent debts warrant the application of two of the disqualifying conditions (DC) of the financial consideration guidelines. DC ¶¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting f inancial obligations.” Whether Applicant harbored any intentional unwillingness to address her listed debt delinquencies irrespective of her financial status is unclear. Her admitted debt delinquencies require no independent proof to substantiate them and raise judgment issues over the management of her finances. .See Directive 5220.6 at E3.1.1.14; McCormick on Evidence § 262 (6th ed. 2006); and ISCR Case No. 03-01059 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2004). Financial stability in a person cleared to protect classified information is required precisely to inspire trust and confidence in the holder of a security clearance that entitles the person to access classified information. While the principal concern of a security clearance holder’s demonstrated difficulties is vulnerability to coercion and influence, judgment and trust concerns are implicit in cases involving delinquent debts. Historically, the timing of addressing and resolving of an applicant’s debt delinquencies (inclusive of both consumer and tax debts) are critical to an assessment of the applicant’s trustworthiness, reliability, and good judgment in following rules and guidelines necessary for those seeking access to classified information or to holding a sensitive position. See ISCR Case No. 14-06808 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 23. 2016); ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015); ISCR Case No. 14-00221 at 2-5 (App. Bd. June 29, 2016). Some mitigation is available to Applicant based on her reported financial struggles associated with multiple periods of unemployment, marital separation, and her

father’s cancer diagnosis and resulting expiration. MC ¶ 20(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,” is partially applicable to Applicant’s situation. Without documented evidence of her addressing her current debt delinquencies, neither the second prong of MC ¶ 20(b) (“acting responsibly under the circumstances”) nor any of the other potentially applicable mitigating conditions are available to her. In the past, the Appeal Board has consistently imposed evidentiary burdens on applicants to provide documentation corroborating actions taken to resolve financial problems, whether the issues relate to back taxes or other debts and accounts. See ISCR Case No. 19-02593 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Oct. 18, 2021); ISCR Case No. 19-01599 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2020). Afforded opportunities to do so, Applicant has provided insufficient information on the status of her debts and available financial resources to address them to mitigate the Government’s financial concerns. Whole-person assessment Whole-person assessment of Applicant’s clearance eligibility requires consideration of whether her history of accumulated delinquent debts is fully compatible with minimum standards for holding a security clearance. While Applicant is entitled to credit for her work in the defense industry, her efforts are not enough at this time to overcome her repeated failures or inability to address her debts. Overall good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness are not established. Based on a consideration of all of the facts and circumstances considered in this case, it is too soon to make safe predictions that Applicant will be able to undertake documented good-faith efforts to mitigate the Government’s financial concerns within the foreseeable future. More time is needed to establish the requisite levels of stability with her finances to establish her overall eligibility for holding a security clearance. I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: GUIDELINE F (FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.i: Against A pplicant

__________________________ In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Roger C. Wesley Administrative Judge