Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00478 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/30/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00478, 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 25-00478denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00478

deniedApr 30, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 34-year-old corrosion specialist employed by a government contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to approximately $23,000 in delinquent debts. Despite having a significant income and savings, the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible efforts to resolve his financial issues, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $23,000, which he admitted.
He failed to make any payments or contact creditors since January 2025, despite having the financial means to do so.
The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts or seek financial counseling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's financial delinquencies are ongoing and unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances to resolve his debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant has not attempted to resolve any of his SOR accounts since January 2025.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2025
Answer filedMay 23, 2025
Hearing heldApr 2, 2026via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateApr 30, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Basis for Denial of Security Clearance
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $23,000, including two credit card debts and two medical debts. The applicant's financial issues were not mitigated, leading to a denial of security clearance due to ongoing financial delinquencies and a lack of effort to resolve the debts.

1.a a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $14,397
$14,397
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $6,112
$6,112
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.c a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,960
$1,960
Finding: Against 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: —
1.d a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $970
$970
Finding: Against 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: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $14,397 $14,397	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $6,112 $6,112	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,960 $1,960	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $970 $970	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	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

partment Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/30/2026 Decision DORSEY, Benjamin R

DECISION

, Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibili

STATEMENT OF CASE

yfor access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On May 20, 2025, the Department of War (DOW) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant responded to the Statement of Reasons on May 23, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The case was assigned to me on January 29, 2026. The hearing was convened as scheduled on April 2, 2026, over the Microsoft

FINDINGS OF FACT

eams online network. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 were admitted in evidence, without objection. Applicant did not offer any documentary evidence. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on April 9, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 34-year-old employee of a government contractor for which he has worked as a corrosion specialist since January 2025. Since he began his current employment, he was stationed in Country S and then Country Q until mid-March 2026,

when his employer sent their employees from Country Q back to the U.S. for operational safety. He has been married since July 2025. He has two children, ages six months and nine. He earned a high school diploma in 2010 and a professional certificate in 2011. (Tr. 16-20; GE 1) In the SOR, the Government alleged that Applicant had four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $23,000. These accounts consist of the following: a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $14,397 (SOR ¶ 1.a); a credit card placed for collection in the approximate amount of $6,112 (SOR ¶ 1.b); a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,960 (SOR ¶ 1.c); and a medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $970 (SOR ¶ 1.d). He admitted the SOR allegations. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. The SOR allegations are established by his admissions and the Government’s credit reports. (SOR; Answer; GE 1-5) Applicant used the credit cards alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.bin early 2024 to pay for home and remodeling expenses when the floor of his home caved in. He paid between $20,000 and $25,000 for the renovations. He did not have any savings at the time to draw upon because he was not earning as much money from the job he had at the time. He was delinquent on the accounts by about April 2024. In January 2025, the creditor for the debt account in SOR ¶ 1.a offered him a lump sum settlement payoff, but he could not afford it. Since then, Applicant has not contacted either of these credit- card creditors, nor has he made any payments on the accounts. He claimed that he could not contact them because he did not have a cell phone from which he could make international calls from Country S or Country Q. (Tr. 33-38; Answer; GE 2-5) Applicant also has not contacted the medical-account creditors for the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.cand 1.d. He again claimed that his lack of ability to place an international phone call from Country S and Country Q. He explored the possibility of subscribing to a cell phone plan that allowed him to place calls internationally, but they were “higher priced,” so he did not follow through. He did not contact any of the SOR creditors online because he claimed that he could not log into his accounts after he became delinquent on them. He testified

POLICIES

hat he could not have his spouse contact the creditors to try to resolve these accounts because they are in his name, so the creditors would not communicate with her. He recently pulled a credit report and now has phone numbers for the SOR creditors. As he is in the U.S for now, he plans on contacting them so that he can either negotiate a lump sum payment or a payment plan. He has not undergone any financial counseling. (Tr. 38-43; GE 2-5) Applicant’s annual base salary with his current employer is $80,000. However, in his first year, he earned between $142,000 and $150,000 because of “uplifts,” such as working overseas. Despite being in the U.S. since mid-March, he continued to earn the same salary as though he was overseas through the hearing date. He has a savings account that had a balance of about $20,500 and a checking account that had a balance of about $10,000. He also has a retirement account, but he is unsure of its 2

balance. In response to interrogatories, in January 2025, he answered questions concerning his SOR debts and one other account delinquent in the approximate amount of $4,600. He also provided a completed personal financial statement (PFS). In the interrogatory respo

ANALYSIS

ses, he claimed that he would contact creditors to settle his SOR accounts. He provided documentary evidence that a lawsuit the non-SOR creditor filed against him had been dismissed. A credit report confirmed that the non-SOR account was settled for less than the full balance in December 2024. In the PFS, he wrote that he had a surplus of about $5,500 per month after paying his expenses. However, he testified that, as of the hearing, he has about $2,500 to $2,800 in surplus funds at the end of each month. He places these savings in the two aforementioned bank accounts. He does not follow a written budget. (Tr. 16-17, 20-23, 26-33, 43-45; GE 2) The March 2026 credit report indicates that Applicant has an auto loan account that is 90-days past due in the approximate amount of $2,690. About three years ago, he co-signed on the loan that created this account to help a friend purchase a vehicle. His friend recently had a collision with this vehicle, and the friend is in the process of having his guaranteed asset protection (GAP) insurance pay off the loan. Applicant received an e-mail about a week before the hearing notifying him that the account was past due, so he contacted his friend. His friend told him that the account should be in a hold status, and no payments should be due. Applicant planned to call the creditor to determine the status and potentially help his friend pay the account, but he has yet to do so. (Tr. 23-26; GE 5) 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 administrative 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. 3

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 fa

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

ts 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 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 entail 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 loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern for financial considerations is set out in A

FORMAL FINDINGS

¶ 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 co

CONCLUSION

cern 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 ra