Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00800 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/10/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeWRITTEN RECORD FORM
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Daniel O'Reilley
Judge: Jeff A. Nagel
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-00800, 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. 25-00800denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00800

deniedMar 10, 2026· Hon. Jeff A. Nagel· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 47-year-old SharePoint Developer with a history of military service, faced security clearance denial under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies and intentional omissions in his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues, including a judgment and multiple collections totaling approximately $25,000, were not mitigated by any evidence of responsible financial behavior or good faith efforts to address the debts.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns due to a history of delinquent debts totaling approximately $25,000.
Applicant intentionally omitted relevant financial information from his security clearance application, demonstrating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 9, 2025
Answer filedOct 1, 2025Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 10, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Failure to Demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The applicant falsified his security clearance application by omitting significant financial issues, which raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

2.a Applicant falsified his April 2023 SCA. He answered, “No”, to all the financial questions under Section 26, even though he had a judgement against him, has numerous collections and a charge-off.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified his April 2023 SCA. He answered, “No”, to all the financial questions under Section 26, even though he had a judgement against him, has numerous collections and a charge-off.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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

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 financial issues, including a judgment and several collection accounts, which raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. While some debts were admitted and payments were documented, the overall financial situation was deemed insufficiently mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

1.a Applicant has a debt on a judgment filed against him in 2024 in the approximate amount of $9,843.
$9,843
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Judgment Against Applicant
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.b Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $7,530.
$7,530
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.i Applicant has a debt on a MEDICAL account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $2,413.
$2,413
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Medical Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a debt on a judgment filed against him in 2024 in the approximate amount of $9,843. $9,843	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $7,530. $7,530	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant has a debt on a MEDICAL account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $2,413. $2,413	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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

____________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFIC

DECISION

OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00800 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Daniel O’Reilley, E

STATEMENT OF CASE

q., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/10/2026 Decision NAGEL, Jeff A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SCA) on April 5, 2023. On September 9, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review

FINDINGS OF FACT

Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017.

On October 1, 2025, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that the case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, Applicant admitted each allegation with explanations. On January 15, 2026, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government Exhibits (GE) 1 to 10 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on January 30, 2026. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Within the allotted time he submitted a one-page document (Response) concerning one of the debts addressed in the SOR. The case was assigned to me on February 20, 2026, and GE 1 to 10 were admitted without objection, as was the Response. Findings of Fact Applicant is 47 years old and works as a SharePoint Developer for a defense contractor. He has an associate’s degree and numerous other college credits. Applicant served in the United States Army from August 1999 until March 2012 and received an honorable discharge. Applicant has also served in the Army reserve. He is twice divorced and has three adult children. Applicant has had a security clearance since 2006 (Items 3, 4) The SOR alleges nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $25,000 consisting of a judgement, collections, and a charge-off. Applicant failed to list these debts on his SCA. In his Answer Applicant admitted to all the allegations (with explanations) in the SOR. (Items 1, 2) Applicant has had delinquent accounts dating back to at least 2018 and acknowledged them during his security clearance interview. His financial difficulties have not changed over the ensuing years. Applicant was the subject of a DoD Continuous Vetting Program incident report in June of 2022 and was also evicted from an apartment complex in 2022. Applicant was the subject of a second DoD Continuous Vetting Program incident report in July 2025. (Items 5, 7, 8, 9) 1.a. Applicant has a debt on a judgment filed against him in 2024 in the approximate amount of $9,843. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he ha

dmade one payment of $25 and scheduled automatic payments of $2,000, $2,000, and $922 towards this debt, after which he will have a remaining balance of approximately $4,922. (Items 1

POLICIES

2 and Response) 1.b. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $7,530. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he had made one payment of $166 towards this debt and has a remaining balance of approximately $7,364. Applicant has not submitted any evidence of any other payments or actions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) 2

1.c. Applicant has a debt on an account that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $2,910. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he had made one payment of $25 towards this debt and has a remaining balance of approximately $2,885. Applicant has not submitted any evidence of any other payments or actions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.d. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection i nthe approximate amount of $891. In his Answer Applicant admitted to this debt. There is no evidence that he has taken any action on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.e. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $473. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he h

ad made one payment of $164 towards this debt. Applicant has not submitted any evidence of any othe

ANALYSIS

payments or actions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.f. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $471. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he had made one pay

ment of approximately $82 towards this debt. Applicant has not submitted any evidence of any other payments or actions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.g. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $339. In his Answer Applicant admitted to this debt. There is no evidence that he has taken any action on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.h. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $50. In his Answer Applicant admitted to this debt. There is no evidence that he has taken any action on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.i. Applicant has a debt on a MEDICAL account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $2,413. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he had made one payment of approximately $20 towards this debt. Applicant has not submitted any evidence of any other payments or actions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) Applicant submitted his latest SCA in April of 2023. He answered, “No”, to all the financial questions under Section 26, which included the following: In the last seven (7) years, [have] you had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) 3

In the last seven (7) years, [have] you had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) During his security clearance interview Applicant was confronted with his debts. Applicant stated, “he left them out due to fear of not getting job, Subject did not disclose the information because he wanted a job, Subject is not ashamed, Subject was not afraid of the effect it would have on his personal or professional reputation, Subject anticipated the negative result of not getting the job by listing the information.” Policies This case is adjudicated under 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 on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied 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(a), 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. 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 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 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 sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 4

Analysis 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

ANALYSIS

ctions taken on this account. (Items 1, 2) 1.f. Applicant has a debt on an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $471. In his Answer he admitted to this debt and provided documentation showing he had made one pay

ANALYSIS

ditions in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied 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(a), 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. 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 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 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 sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 4

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

liability, 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; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to at least 2018 and currently has a judgement against him as well as numerous collections and a charge- off. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) are applicable. 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 indi

FORMAL FINDINGS

idual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 5

(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; (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and (e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which i

sthe c

ause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the

CONCLUSION

ssue. Applicant has provided documentation that he has made and will be making considerable payments on the judgement filed against him. He has made a payment of $20 on a medical collection. Outside of this he has provided documentary evidence showing he has paid approximately $438 towards his other debts. I am unable to find that he has acted reasonably and responsibly under the circumstances on all but two of his accounts, or that he made a good-faith effort to pay his debts. Accordingly, they continue to cast doubt on he