Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00282 · CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date3/30/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: John Renehan
Judge: Darlene D. Lokey Anderson
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-00282, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00282denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00282

deniedMar 30, 2026· Hon. Darlene D. Lokey Anderson· hearing

Synopsis

Darlene D. Lokey Anderson, the Administrative Judge, denied the security clearance application of a 55-year-old single male with a Master's degree in Business Administration, citing financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant admitted to significant delinquent tax debts totaling over $47,000 for the tax year 2020, which he failed to address in a timely manner despite having the financial means to do so. Although he made efforts to resolve his tax issues after receiving the Statement of Reasons, the judge found that he did not demonstrate a consistent pattern of financial responsibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to file income tax returns annually as required by law.
Applicant had significant delinquent tax debts totaling over $47,000 for tax year 2020.
Despite having the financial means to pay his debts, he procrastinated in addressing his tax obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure 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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
AG ¶ 20(f)rejectedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those Arrangements

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 10, 2025
Answer filedJul 25, 2025
Hearing heldMar 4, 2026record remained open until March 18, 2026
Decision dateMar 30, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Tax Debts Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate a Pattern of Financial Responsibility
Procrastination in Addressing Tax Obligations Despite Financial Means to Pay Debts

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 significant financial issues, including delinquent taxes owed to the Federal Government and two states, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Despite the applicant's efforts to pay off these debts, the judge concluded that he had not established a pattern of financial responsibility, resulting in a denial of his security clearance.

1.a Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $33,516.34 for tax year 2020.
$33,516
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b He is also indebted to the State of Georgia for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $9,534.44 for tax year 2020.
$9,534
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.c and to the State of California in the approximate amount of $4,361.25 for tax year 2020.
$4,361
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $33,516.34 for tax year 2020. $33,516	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	He is also indebted to the State of Georgia for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $9,534.44 for tax year 2020. $9,534	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.c	and to the State of California in the approximate amount of $4,361.25 for tax year 2020. $4,361	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—

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

APPEARANCES

tion (e- QIP). On July 10, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjud

DECISION

ication Services (DCSA CAS) issued Applicant a Stat

STATEMENT OF CASE

ement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended (EO); DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), effective within the DoD after June 8, 2017.

Applicant answered the SOR on July 25, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 13, 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing on January 6, 2026, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on March 4, 2026. The Government offered four exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant called three witnesses and testified on his own behalf. He offered one exhibit, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibit A, which was admitted without objection. (Tr. pp. 68-69.) The record remained open until March 18, 2026, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation. Applicant submitted four Post- Hearing Exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits C through F, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 16, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is 55 years old, single, and has no children. He has a Master’s degree in Business Administration. He holds the position of Lead Management Consultant. He is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment. Guideline F - Financial Considerations The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. The SOR identified three allegations: Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $33,516.34 for tax year 2020. He is also indebted to the State of Georgia for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $9,534.44 for tax year 2020; and to the State of California in the approximate amount of $4,361.25 for tax year 2020. He admitted each of the allegations in the SOR. Applicant’s Subject Interview dated April 17, 2025; and Responses to Interrogatories dated December 30, 2024; and May 13, 2025, also confirms the information set forth in the allegations in the SOR. (Government Exhibits 2 and 3.) Applicant began working for his current employer in 2003. He has held a security clearance since about 1999. His annual salary is about $188,712. Applicant’s most recent Personal Financial Statement reflects that he has sufficient financial resources available for him to pay his delinquent tax debts if he chose to do so. Outside of his salary, Applicant has about $1,020,000 in stocks and bonds in a retirement account as well as other resources. (Applicant’s Exhibit B, and Tr. pp. 69-70.) 2

Applicant explained that since about 2003, he adopted the bad habit of filing his income tax returns in clumps of several years, rather than filing them one at a time each year as required. He would also maximize his withholdings, so he would always get a refund. Since his mother and his accountant both live out of state, in the

POLICIES

same state, he would wait to have his income tax returns done when he would travel to visit his mother. For example, his income tax returns for 2021, 2022, and 2023, were not filed until December 2024, when he visited his mother. (Tr. p. 51.) In December 2020, he sold a rental property he owned in Georgia that he had for 19 years. Since Applicant did not file his returns on time, depreciation on the house was not considered. As a result, Applicant learned from his accountant, through his calculations, that Applicant owed a substantial amount of taxes to the Federal Government; the State of Georgia; and the State of California, for tax year 2020. Applicant stated that he never received a notification or bill from the IRS or from either State tax authority requesting payment. (Tr. p. 42.) He knew that he had to address the tax matters and so he decided to pay the smallest tax debt off first, and then the others. His tax returns for 2020 were not filed until March 2025. (Tr. p. 52.) In his response to the SOR, Applicant indicated that he already paid in full, inclusive of interest and penalties, the delinquent taxes he owed to the State of California. After paying off the State of California, in about June 2025 he set up payment plans to pay the Federal Government, $1000 a month, and the State of Georgia, $300 a month through the auto-pay system. He made three or four payments to each tax authority before the auto-pay system just stopped working. (Tr. p. 86.) Applicant then manually inputted the information into the system, and the payments went through. However, he was notified at some point by the Federal Government that the auto-pay system was not working properly. By October 2025, Applicant knew that he had to address his delinquent taxes some other way, but he said that he was suffering from what he called “task paralysis.” (Tr. p. 59.) Applicant testified that the Covid pandemic also hindered his income tax filings for tax years 2020, 2021, and 2022, but it was not the main reason for his delay. Applicant suffers from Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorde

ANALYSIS

r (ADHD), that he has struggled with his entire life. He is on prescribed medication for his condition. As he gets older, the medication is adjusted, but his tolerance to the medication has gone up. This neurodevelopmental disorder is characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. He explained that at times it is hard for him to get things moving. He stated that he was aware of the tax problem, wanted to fix it, was trying to fix it, but it was difficult for him to fix it on his own, which caused delays and avoidance. However, he does not like to use his medical condition as an excuse. (Tr. p. 60.) In hindsight Applicant realizes that he was not meeting his legal obligations for filing his income tax returns every year for many years. Since he has had a security clearance for many years, and had never been flagged, he did not think it was a problem. Applicant takes full responsibility for his actions and stated that he will never allow it to happen again. To be more efficient going forward, he realized that he needed to hire a 3

local accountant to handle his income tax filings. He also had questions on how best to address his delinquent tax indebtedness. He has now hired a local accountant, and rather than follow a structured payment plan, he decided to completely pay off each of his delinquent tax debts for tax year 2020. A letter from Applicant’s new accountant dated March 17, 2026, indicates that on March 4, 2026, Applicant electronically filed his Federal and State income tax returns for tax years 2024, and 2025, no further tax liability was incurred, and they were accepted by both tax authorities. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.) 1.a. On March 16, 2026; and March 18, 2026, Applicant paid off the delinquent tax debt he owed to the Federal Government in the amount of $30,700.51 for tax year 2020. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits C, D-1, and D-2.) 1.b. On March 13, 2026, Applicant paid off the delinquent tax debt the owed to the State of Georgia in the amount of $8,573.43 for tax year 2020. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits C, E-1, and E-2.) 1.c. Applicant has paid off the tax debt he owed to the State of California in the amount of approximately $4,361 for tax year 2020. (Tr. pp. 65-66.) Three witnesses testified on Applicant’s behalf, who are all long-time friends and professional associates. Two of them are employed with other defense contractors and possess security clearances. The third witness is Applicant’s new accountant. In their collective opinions, Applicant’s top qualify is his loyalty to his job and to others. He is also known as a top performer who is extremel

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

ydedicated to his job. Applicant is described as an individual who holds others to high expectations for quality work and attention to detail. He is said to be open and honest about issues and so he cannot be blackmailed. He models himself with the highest regard and respect for his position and would never do anything outside of his position that would detrimentally effect his position or his life. Applicant is known to be responsible, reliable, and trustworthy. (Tr. pp. 17-31, and 90- 101.) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative 4

judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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) requi

FORMAL FINDINGS

res that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the government must present evidence to esta

CONCLUSION

blish 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 clearance 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