ISCR Case No. 25-00426

DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No

25-00426 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Troy Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/06/2026 Decision HYAMS, Ross D., Adm

nistrative Judge: Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns arising from her delinquent debts. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On May 6, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant answered the SOR on June 29, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 5, 2026. The hearing convened on February 10, 2026. Department Counsel submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1-4, which were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant did not submit any documentary evidence at the hearing. After the hearing concluded, I held the record open for two weeks to allow Applicant to submit documentation. She timely s

bmitted Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A-Q, which were admitted without objection.

Findings of Fact Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations. Her admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. Based on my review of the pleadings, evidence submitted, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 35 years old. She is unmarried and has no children. She earned a bachelor’s degree in 2012 and a master’s degree in 2015. She had previously served as a federal probation officer from 2018-2023 and held a public trust clearance. She resigned from that position and has been unable to find full-time steady work. She has applied for work as a background investigator with a government contractor, which is contingent on obtaining a security clearance. (Tr. 14-20; GE 1) In January 2023, Applicant required surgery and had a recovery period before she could return to work. The nature of her work as a probation officer required irregular and inconsistent hours. She reported she had to work longer hours on some days, and she would accumulate “comp time” which she could use to take leave later. At times she would request leave at the end of the week, when her supervisor was out, and would take the leave before it was officially approved. She stated she was being considered for termination, because of her leave practices. She decided to resign in September 2023 because she did not want to be terminated, she was no longer able to work the irregular hours, and she had another surgery scheduled, which required another recovery period. The issues surrounding her resignation were not alleged in the SOR. This information will not be considered under matters of disqualification. (Tr. 40-62) Despite her experience and education, Applicant has had difficulty finding employment since her resignation in September 2023. She earned $33 hourly working as a probation officer, and did not think she would be unable to find gainful employment when she resigned. She reported she has only been able to find part-time work. She has been working part-time for a grocery store, earning about $15 hourly, and she is only allowed to work between 25-30 hours weekly. In two years, she has not been given a raise or more hours. She also has seasonal employment with an airline earning about $23 hourly. She has tried to obtain full-time work with the airline but is on a waiting list for a position behind more senior personnel. (Tr. 40-62; AE N) Applicant asserted that she has actively applied for full-time work in State A and other locations, both in and out of her career field, but has been unable to secure employment. She stated that she is living paycheck to paycheck. She budgets her money and puts her income to her most pressing monthly needs. She has faced several eviction notices over the last year. In her free time, she is actively seeking employment in State A and other states. (Tr. 40-62) Under Guideline F, the allegations are as follows: 2

SOR ¶ 1.a alleges an account placed for collection for $19,326. Applicant reported this was a personal loan she took to help herself and mother. She was living in State B and the rent was very expensive. She stated the loan was an attempt to get ahead with her finances. He mom needed assistance paying her property taxes so that she did not lose her house. She reported she was able to repay this loan until she resigned from her job. She testified she had contacted the original creditor who directed her to a new debt collector. She has made a hardship request asking they cease collection activities. She provided documentation showing that the new creditor sent her correspondence regarding her hardship request and some additional information. There is no further information about the outcome of the request in the record. (Tr. 20-40; AE A) SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a credit card account that was charged off for $6,259. Applicant testified that they initially offered her a $400 monthly payment plan, which she could not afford. Post-hearing, she submitted new documentation showing the creditor offered her a settlement option for a onetime payment of $2,503, and they also outlined several different payment plan options based on the larger balance. There is no further information in the record about if the offer was accepted or not. (Tr. 20-40; AE B) SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a credit card account charged off for $4,896. Applicant testified she had arranged a payment plan. She provided documentation showing the plan is for $136 monthly, starting in March 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE C) SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a personal loan account charged off for $2,319. Applicant testified she used the money to help her pay monthly expenses after she resigned from her job. She reported she has tried to arrange a settlement with the creditor but could not afford the initial offered monthly payment plan of $400. Post-hearing, she submitted new documentation showing the creditor offered her a settlement option for a onetime payment of $927, and they also outlined several different payment plan options based on the larger balance. There is no further information in th

record if the offer was accepted or not. (Tr. 20-40; AE D) SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a personal loan account charged off for $2,148. Applicant testified she used the loan to help her pay monthly expenses after she resigned from her job. She reported she has tried to arrange a settlement with the creditor but could not afford the initial offered monthly payment plan of $400. Post-hearing, she submitted new documentation showing the creditor offered her a settlement option for a onetime payment of $859, and they also outlined several different payment plan options based on the larger balance. There is no further information in the record if the offer was accepted or not. (Tr. 20-40; AE E) SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a student loan account placed for collection for $1,958. Applicant testified she had arranged a payment plan. She provided documentation showing the plan is for $60 monthly, starting in March 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE F) SOR ¶ 1.g alleges a loan account charged off for $1,831. Applicant testified she used the loan to assist with her living expenses in State B. She testified that she has a 3

payment plan, and provided documentation showing the plan is for $60 monthly, starting in March 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE G) SOR ¶ 1.h alleges an account charged off for $1,100. Applicant testified she has a payment plan for $50 monthly. She provided documentation showing that she made a $50 payment on this debt in February, but did not provide documentation of a recurring payment plan. (Tr. 20-40; AE H) SOR ¶ 1.i alleges Applicant has a credit card account placed for collection for $672. Applicant testified that she had established a payment plan. She provided documentation showing that the plan is for $37 biweekly, starting in February 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE I) SOR ¶ 1.j alleges an account charged off for $322. This debt was an installment loan that Applicant could not pay when she resigned from her job. She testified she has a payment plan. She provided documentation showing a plan for $25 biweekly, starting in March 2026.

Tr. 20-40; AE J) SOR ¶ 1.k alleges an account charged off for $166. This debt was an installment loan that Applicant could not pay when she resigned from her job. She testified that she has a payment plan for $55 biweekly that starts in late February. They did not provide her with email confirmation of the plan. She provided documentation showing that $50 and $16.50 payments were made on this debt in February. (Tr. 20-40; AE K) SOR ¶ 1.l alleges an account charged off for $74. This debt was an installment loan that Applicant could not pay when she resigned from her job. She testified that she has a payment plan. She provided documentation showing a plan for $20 weekly, which will be resolved in full in late March 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE L) SOR ¶ 1.m alleges an account charged off for $60. This debt was an installment loan that Applicant could not pay when she resigned from her job. She testified that she has a payment plan. She provided documentation showing a plan for $20 weekly, which will be resolved in full in early March 2026. (Tr. 20-40; AE M) Applicant reported efforts to resolve delinquent debt on her SCA. She testified that she had an appointment scheduled with a credit counselor in late February. She stated that she has a written budget and uses it for her monthly expenses. A friend suggested that she file bankruptcy, but she did not think that was the right option for her at this time. She wants to work on her repayment efforts to resolve the debts. (Tr. 20-40) Post-hearing, Applicant provided a monthly budget that shows that her expenses with debt payments are $660 greater than her monthly income. She provided documentation showing she has an offer for full-time employment with a government contractor that will pay her about $23.00 hourly and benefits, which is $8 an hour greater than her current salary. This increase would provide her about $1,200 more monthly. She plans to use this income to settle her remaining delinquent debt. (AE N-Q) 4

Policies 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 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 ad

inistrative 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 m

tigate 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 enta

l 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 l