ISCR Case No. 24-02269

__________ __________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-02269 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Cynthia Ruckno, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 02/20/2026

WESLEY, ROGER C., Administrative Judge: Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, 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 February 7, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Adjudication and Vetting Services (DCSA AVS) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing reasons why under the financial considerations guideline the DCSA AVS 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 February 7, 2025, and requested that his case be resolved on the written record without a hearing. Applicant received the File of Relevant Material (FORM) on June 25, 2025, and he elected not to respond to the FORM. This case was assigned to me on December 2, 2025. The Government’s case consisted of six exhibits that were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6. Summary of Pleadings Under Guideline F, Applicant allegedly accumulated 24 delinquent consumer debts exceeding $34,000. Applicant’s delinquent debts have not been resolved and remain outstanding. In Applicant’s response to the SOR, he admitted the allegations pertaining to his finances. He added no explanations and clarifications.

Applicant is a 35-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 is unmarried and has one child. (GE 3) He earned a high school diploma in May 2007. (GE 3) He reported no military service. Since October 2009, Applicant has been employed by his current employer as a di

gital press operator. (GE 3) He has never held a security clearance and is presently sponsored by his current employer. Applicant’s Finances Between 2016 and 2023, Applicant accumulated 24 delinquent debts exceeding $34,000. (GE 4-6) He attributed his debts to reduced overtime following the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and his inability to stay current with his debts with the financial reserves (past and present) available to him. (GE 6) In his past efforts to clean up his credit, he considered filing for bankruptcy, but never followed through. (GE 6) In a personal subject interview (PSI) convened in June 2024, Applicant told the Government investigator he would address his old debts only if necessary to save his job. (GE 6) Asked about cutting his spending, Applicant affirmed that he would try to reduce his discretionary spending.

Acknowledging his lack of a firm grasp of his financial situation while ignoring his bills, Applicant assured the investigator that he was still open to finding a part-time job, despite his inability to accommodate part-time work with the demands of his full-time job. He made no firm commitment, however, to address and resolve his delinquent debts within the foreseeable future.

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.” Id. 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. These guidelines 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. 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. Burdens of Proof 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 t herein 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. Sept. 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).

The Financial Considerations security concern is stated in AG ¶ 18: 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. Security concerns are raised over Applicant’s accumulation of 24 delinquent debts exceeding $34,000 that raise trust, reliability, and judgment concerns. Applicant’s accumulated delinquent debts warrant the application of three of the disqualifying conditions (DC) of the financial consideration guidelines. DC ¶¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts”; 19(b), “unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so”; and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply to Applicant’s situation. Applicant’s admitted debt delinquencies require no independent proof to substantiate them. See Directive 5220.6 at E3.1.14; McCormick on Evidence § 262 (6th ed. 2006). His admitted debt delinquencies are fully documented and raise judgment issues over the management of his finances. See ISCR Case No. 03-01059 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2004). Credit bureau reports are ordinary business records admissible as an exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R. of Ev.) as a hearsay exception that doesn’t require an authenticating witness. See ISCR Case No. 18-00052 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2019); ISCR Case No. 07-08955 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Sept. 15, 2008). The timing of addressing and resolving an applicant’s debt delinquencies 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). Conditions that could mitigate the security concerns are listed in AG ¶ 20. Two are potentially applicable to the facts of this case: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast

doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (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. Given the nature and number of Applicant’s delinquent debts, no mitigation can be afforded based on the passage of time or infrequency. Mitigating condition (MC) ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant is entitled to partial application of MC ¶ 20(b), in recognition of extenuating circumstances associated with his unexpected reduction in overtime hours. However, he is not able to meet the mitigation requirements of the second prong of MC ¶ 20(b) (“and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances”). Without documented evidence of Applicant addressing and resolving his current debt delinquencies, other mitigating conditions are not available to him. To date, he has not provided documented evidence of any payment progress or current ability to address and resolve his debts. And, with the persuasive burden of proof imposed squarely on Applicant to establish that his finances are stabilized and under his firm control, more tangible payment progress is expected of him. Whole-person assessment Whole-person assessment of Applicant’s clearance eligibility requires consideration of whether his history of accumulated delinquent debts is fully compatible with minimum standards for holding a security clearance. While Applicant is entitled to credit for his work in the defense industry, his efforts are not enough at this time to overcome his repeated failures or inability to address his delinquent debts. Overall good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness are not established. More time is needed to establish the requisite levels of stability with his finances to establish his 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.x: 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