Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00237 · CASE

ISCR Case 25-00237denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00237

deniedMar 18, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 48-year-old assembly mechanic, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $78,000. Despite hiring a debt-resolution company, the applicant failed to demonstrate any progress in resolving these debts, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant unresolved debts totaling approximately $78,000.
He failed to provide evidence of payments or progress in resolving his debts.
The applicant's financial irresponsibility raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 4, 2025
Answer filedApr 23, 2025
Hearing held—Requested decision on the written record
Decision dateMar 18, 2026

Cite For

Denial Based on Significant Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Progress in Debt Resolution
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling over $78,000, including a significant tax debt and several charged-off accounts. The applicant's financial issues were deemed unresolved, and the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his financial situation.

1.a a debt to the U.S. Treasury placed for collection of about $31,930
$31,930
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b a debt to the Small Business Association charged off for $27,796
$27,796
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.c six delinquent consumer debts for $8,128
$8,128
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.d $1,001
$1,001
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.e $301
$301
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.f $4,301
$4,301
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.g $1,019
$1,019
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.h $6,289
$6,289
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a debt to the U.S. Treasury placed for collection of about $31,930 $31,930	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a debt to the Small Business Association charged off for $27,796 $27,796	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	six delinquent consumer debts for $8,128 $8,128	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	$1,001 $1,001	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	$301 $301	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	$4,301 $4,301	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	$1,019 $1,019	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	$6,289 $6,289	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00237 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Brittany C. M. White, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/18/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on March 6, 2024. On April 4, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on April 23, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on May 29, 2025. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. The FORM consists of eight 1

exhibits. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 and 2 are the pleadings in the case. GX 3 through 8 are the evidence in support of the allegations in the SOR. GX 3 is a summary of an interview of Applicant by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management. It is not authenticated as required by the Directive ¶ E3.1.20. Applicant was notified in the FORM that if he did not respond to the FORM or object to GX 3 in a response to the FORM, he might be determined to have waived any objection to GX 3. He received the FORM on December 16, 2025, and did not respond. I conclude that he waived any objection to the unauthenticated GX 3. GX 3 through 8 are admitted in evidence. The case was assigned to me on February 18, 2026. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.a and admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.bthrough 1.h. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 48-year-old assembly mechanic employed by a federal contractor since May 2022. He received an associate degree in August 2020. He has lived with a cohabitant since August 2018 and has an adult son. He has never held a security clearance. The SOR alleges a debt to the U.S. Treasury placed for collection of about $31,930 (SOR ¶ 1.a); a debt to the Small Business Association charged off for $27,796 (SOR ¶ 1.b); and six delinquent consumer debts for $8,128 (SOR ¶ 1.c); $1,001 (SOR ¶ 1.d); $301 (SOR ¶ 1.e); $4,301 (SOR ¶ 1.f); $1.019 (SOR ¶ 1.g); and $6,289 (SOR ¶ 1.h). The debts are reflected in credit reports dated October 8, 2024 (GX 6) and March 27, 2025 (GX 7). In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he denied the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. This debt was referred for collection in December 2018. During Applicant’s interview with a security investigator in July 2024, he stated he thought this debt arose from a loan he applied for but never received. He told the investigator he was hospitalized after applying for the loan, and he assumed that his application was not approved because he did not receive any funds. (GX 8 at 3) It is not resolved. Applicant hired a debt-resolution company to resolve the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.bthrough 1.h. The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a was not referred to the debt-resolution company. To date, none of the debts have been resolved. In response to DCSA financial interrogatories on October 31, 2024, Applicant provided a personal financial statement reflecting that his net monthly income is $4,115.16 and monthly expenses are $4,121.84, leaving a monthly shortfall of $6.68 (GX 4 at 11) 2

Applicant presented no evidence of payments made by him or his debt-resolution company on any of the debts alleged in the SOR. During a security interview in July 2024, he admitted that he did not keep track of what he was spending, which was why he hired the debt-resolution company to assist him. He hopes to resolve all his delinquent debts within the next five years. (GX 8 at 6) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. 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, an administrative judge applies these guidelines 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 and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 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 that 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 made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal 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 at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence 3

does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “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. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 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 burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531. Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern under this guideline 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. . . . An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . . This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the FORM establish the two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: 4

AG ¶ 20(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; AG ¶ 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; AG ¶ 20(c): the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. None of the above mitigating conditions are established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent, frequent, and did not occur under circumstances making recurrence unlikely. He submitted no evidence of conditions largely beyond his control. His debt- resolution company does not provide the financial counseling contemplated by AG ¶ 20(c). His debt-resolution company has not yet begun to repay creditors or otherwise resolve his debts. Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the relevant circumstances. An 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Because Applicant requested a 5

determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor. See ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.h: Against Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge 6