ISCR Case No. 25-00681

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00681 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Sakeena Farhath, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/03/2026

Dorsey, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On July 22, 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant responded to the SOR on September 11, 2025 (Answer), and requested a decision based on the written record. The Government submitted its written file of relevant material (FORM) on November 25, 2025. A complete copy of the FORM was provided to Applicant, along with information advising him that he had 30 days from his date of receipt to make objections to evidence, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on December 10, 2025, and did not provide a response. The case was assigned to me on February 18, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM, marked as Items 1 through 7 are admitted in evidence, without objection.

Applicant is a 68-year-old employee of a government contractor for which he has been employed since about September 2023. While he lost a job in October 2019, he reported that he has been continuously employed since January 2010. He graduated from high school in 1977. He has been in a civil marriage since 2020. He had a prior marriage from 1993 until a divorce in 2001. He has no children. (Items 3, 7) Applicant has significant financial issues. He owes delinquent federal taxes in the amount of about $14,800 for tax years 2019, 2021, and 2022 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.c). He has about 40 delinquent consumer accounts totaling about $169,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.d through 1.qq). He had a mortgage account foreclosed upon in 2021 (SOR ¶ 1.rr). (Items 1-7) In the SOR, the Government alleged the aforementioned financial issues. In the Answer, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. His admissions are adopted into my findings of fact. The SOR allegations are established by his admissions, the credit reports, and IRS account transcripts. He claimed that he fell behind on these debts because he had to change jobs several times, which resulted in significantly lower pay. He also blamed the COVID-19 pandemic. He claimed that he will pay his delinquent debts, that he is currently paying an unalleged state tax debt, and then he will begin working on his federal tax debt. He provided a document showing that he owes about $2,400 in unalleged delinquent state tax debt. He did not provide documentation showing: (1) proof of payments, such as checking account statements, photocopies of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that he paid or made any payments on the SOR accounts; (2) correspondence to creditors or CBRs showing credible debt disputes indicating he did not believe he was responsible for the debts and why he held such a belief; or (3) evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that he was attempting to resolve his delinquent SOR debts. (Items 1, 2, 4-7)

This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective within DOD on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. 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 of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18: Failure 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 and 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 or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. Applicant owes delinquent federal taxes. He has 40 delinquent consumer debts totaling about $169,000. The above disqualifying conditions are established. Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following are potentially applicable: (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; (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; (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and (g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements. It is reasonable to expect Applicant to present documentation about the resolution of specific debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2016). Applicant has provided no such documents addressing the SOR debts. He has not made, or attempted to make, payment arrangements on his SOR debts. Applicant’s financial delinquencies are recent and ongoing, therefore, I do not find they are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.

The conditions that led to Applicant’s financial problems were arguably beyond his control. For AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, he must also show that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. In a similar vein, for AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, he must show that he initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he met either of these standards. He has not made payment arrangements on his delinquent debts. He has only made promises to pay in the future, which are not considered acting responsibly or in good faith. AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) do not apply. Finally, there is insufficient evidence to show that Applicant has arrangements with the IRS to pay his delinquent taxes. His claim that he will make payment arrangements in the future does not meet the standard required under AG ¶ 20(g).

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (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 for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole- person analysis. Overall, given the lack of evidence of Applicant’s resolution of his financial issues, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns.

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: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

________________________ Subparagraphs 1.a-1.rr: Against Applicant

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. Benjamin R. Dorsey Administrative Judge