Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00480 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/13/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Brittany White, Esq.
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00480, 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 25-00480denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00480

deniedMay 13, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 34-year-old desktop support technician, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to significant financial issues, including approximately $66,000 in delinquent debts and unpaid taxes. Despite claiming to be on payment plans, the applicant failed to provide evidence of consistent payments or financial counseling, leading to the denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to having numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $66,000.
The applicant's payment arrangements were not adhered to, with multiple dishonored payments and canceled agreements.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of financial counseling or a consistent track record of good-faith payments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability 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)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's numerous delinquent debts indicate ongoing financial issues.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial difficulties were partly due to caring for ailing grandparents.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceiving Financial Counseling From a Legitimate SourceThe applicant did not provide evidence of receiving financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant made some payments towards certain debts but not consistently.
AG ¶ 20(g)rejectedArrangements with Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount OwedThe applicant failed to honor tax payment agreements.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 7, 2025
Answer filedOct 16, 2025
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMay 13, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Adherence to Payment Plans and Financial Responsibility
Impact of Financial Difficulties 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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $66,000, which the applicant failed to adequately address or mitigate. While the applicant demonstrated some efforts to repay certain debts, these were insufficient to overcome the overall financial irresponsibility, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

1.a Owes approximately $53,000 in delinquent federal taxes for tax years 2019, 2020, and 2023.
$53,000
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 Owes approximately $3,500 in delinquent state tax debt.
$3,500
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 Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602.
$7,602
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 Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602.
$7,602
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 Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602.
$7,602
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 Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781.
$2,781
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 Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781.
$2,781
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 Paid in full for less than the full balance in or near April 2025.
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20):
(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts
Mitigation: —
1.i Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781.
$2,781
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.j Paid in full for less than the full balance in or near May 2025.
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20):
(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts
Mitigation: —
1.k Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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.l Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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.m Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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.n Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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.o Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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.p Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256.
$2,256
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	Owes approximately $53,000 in delinquent federal taxes for tax years 2019, 2020, and 2023. $53,000	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	Owes approximately $3,500 in delinquent state tax debt. $3,500	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	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602. $7,602	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602. $7,602	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $7,602. $7,602	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781. $2,781	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781. $2,781	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Paid in full for less than the full balance in or near April 2025.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.i	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,781. $2,781	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Paid in full for less than the full balance in or near May 2025.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.k	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	Delinquent consumer debt totaling approximately $2,256. $2,256	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

APPEARANCES

nder Guideline F, Financial Considerations. His application for eligibility for access to cla

DECISION

ified information and assignment to duties designated as national security sensitive is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positio

STATEMENT OF CASE

(SCA) on November 7, 2021. On July 7, 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. 1

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant answered the SOR on October 16, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on January 28, 2026. 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. He received the FORM on March 3, 2026, and he did not respond or object to any of the exhibits. The case was assigned to me on April 30, 2026. The FORM consists of the pleadings in the case, Government Exhibit (GE) 1 and the documents in support of the allegations in the SOR, GE 2 through 10. GE 2 through 10 are admitted into evidence, without objection. Findings of Fact The SOR alleges 14 separate delinquent accounts comprised of consumer debts totaling approximately $13,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c.-1.p.), a delinquent state tax debt of approximately $3,500 (SOR ¶ 1.b.), and delinquent federal taxes totaling approximately $53,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a.). In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the allegations and explained that the debts are “currently on a payment plan.” (GE 2) His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 34-year-old high school graduate. He is not married and does not have any children. He attended some courses at a community college but did not receive a degree. He is employed as a desktop support technician for a government defense contractor. In his SCA, Applicant disclosed his failure to timely file his 2019 and 2020 federal income taxes, as well as one delinquent consumer account. In response to Government interrogatories, he admitted additional debts but indicated repeatedly that payment arrangements had been made and that he was adhering to said arrangements. (GE 3 at 11-13, 27-28, and 43) Although he admits to procrastinating and putting off addressing his old taxes and debts, he asserts that the crux of his financial difficulties stems from having to take care of and financially assist his ailing grandparents, who passed away in the last two years. (GE 4) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax account transcripts provided by the Applicant confirm that most of his tax debt is a result of reassessments and corrections of amounts due made by the IRS after Applicant filed his tax returns. Although he entered into an installment agreement with the IRS in June 2022, beginning in January 2023, his payments were regularly dishonored, and the installment agreement was canceled by the IRS in August 2024. (GE 4 at 5-10) Though records indicate a new agreement was entered in October 2024, there is no evidence of payments made toward the agreement. The record is void of recent payments made to address his significant federal tax debt. Applicant engaged the services of a debt-consolidation company on or about October 26, 2024. (GE 4) Per submitted documentation, he enrolled $7,535 of his debt into a debt negotiation agreement, towards which he was to make $125 bi-weekly payments. The delinquent consumer debts listed on SOR ¶¶ 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.g., and 1.h. appear to be the enrolled accounts. (GE 4 at 40) The plan was to run for 22 months and 2

commence on November 8, 2024. (GE 4 at 39) There is evidence of four installments made towards this agreement, from November 14, 2024, through January 1, 2025. However, the record lacks additional documentation

POLICIES

support that Applicant continued to adhere to the agreement. I have noted that in response to Government interrogatories, Applicant submitted documentation of pending payments of approximately $34 a month to an unalleged creditor, to address a total debt of approximately $184. GE 6, line item 10, reflects a previously delinquent debt that was owed to this creditor, that now indicates a $0 balance. SOR¶ 1.a. alleges delinquent tax debt Applicant owes to the federal government for tax years 2019 ($19,000), 2020 ($33,000), and 2023 ($817) totaling approximately $53,000. Based on tax documentation submitted by Applicant, his tax debt is a result of additional or corrected taxes assessed by the IRS after he filed his tax returns for the aforementioned years. Applicant initially entered into an installment agreement with the IRS in June 2022 to address his 2019 tax debt. He made six good-faith payments of $375 towards this debt from August 2022 through December 2022. His following payments of approximately $400 to $625 a month from January 2023 through May 2024 were nearly all dishonored, and the installment agreement was terminated in August 2024. He entered into a new agreement in October 2024; however, the one payment made in November 2024 towards the new agreement was dishonored. He provided no further information for tax year 2019. Based on documentation submitted, an installment agreement was established by the IRS in January 2023 to address Applicant’s delinquent 2020 tax debt, however no payments were made towards the agreement. Like his 2019 tax debt, this agreement was also terminated in August 2024. A new installment agreement was established in October 2024. However, no payments have been made towards said agreement. Tax year 2023 debt was also included in the new installment agreement established in October 2024, and again, no payments have been made towards that agreement. (GE 3, 4, and 8) SOR¶ 1.b. alleges a state (State A) tax debt in the approximate amount of $3,523. Applicant was re-assessed by State A’s taxation department on or about April 3, 2023, and they determined that he owed an additional tax. (GE 9) Based on documentation he submitted dated December 28, 2024, which appear to be online state tax filings, his State A taxes were due on or before May 1, 2023, and the document reflects, “Balance Due or Refund $701.” He also included an undated state tax voucher from State B for tax year 2023, which indicated a balance due and payment amount of $69. (GE 4) Applicant did not submit any documentation to support resolution of the tax debt as alleged on the SOR. SOR ¶¶ 1.c

ANALYSIS

1.d., 1.e., 1.g., and 1.h. are all debts that have either been charged off or have been placed for collection by the creditor in various amounts, totaling $7,602. Public record documents indicate potential liens and judgments entered against Applicant by some of these creditors that total approximately $3,600. (GE 10) These are the debts that were enrolled in Applicant’s debt resolution agreement he entered in October 2024. (GE 4) All these debts, but for one, reflect as delinquent on Applicant’s most recent credit bureau report (CBR) accessed on January 27, 2026. SOR ¶ 1.h. has been paid in full for less than the full balance in or near April 2025. (GE 5) 3

SOR ¶ 1.j. is a delinquent debt of approximately $734, owed to the same creditor as that in SOR ¶ 1.c. However, this debt was paid in full for less than the full balance in or near May 2025. (GE 5) SOR ¶¶ 1.f., 1.i., 1.n., and 1.o. are all delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $2,781 that are reflected as delinquent on Applicant’s most recent CBR. (GE 5) In his Answer to the SOR, he asserted “currently on a payment plan” yet submitted no documentation in support. GE 5 indicates Applicant has two delinquent debts with the creditor listed on SOR ¶ 1.f., only one of which has been alleged in the SOR. The unalleged debt is for approximately $224. (GE 5) SOR ¶¶ 1.k., 1.l., 1.m., and 1.p. are all delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $2,256 that do not appear on GE 5, but they are reflected as delinquent on Applicant’s CBR accessed on February 6, 2024. (GE 7) The debt alleged on SOR ¶ 1.k. is for $67, not $160 as alleged on the SOR. (GE 6 and 7) In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant asserted “currently on a payment plan” yet submitted no documentation in support. 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 4

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 o

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence 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 abil

FORMAL FINDINGS

yto 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 irresponsibl

CONCLUSION

unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. Ma