Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00857 · CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-00857denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-00857

deniedMay 29, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 38-year-old administrative assistant, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 25 unresolved consumer debts totaling approximately $19,946. Despite admitting to the debts and attributing them to poor financial planning, the applicant provided no documentary evidence of payment arrangements or financial counseling. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to 25 unresolved consumer debts totaling about $19,946.
The applicant provided no documentary evidence of payment arrangements or financial counseling.
The applicant's debts were numerous and recent, indicating a lack of financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA 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 debts are numerous and recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant admitted the debts were due to poor financial planning.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling From a Legitimate SourceThe applicant submitted no evidence of financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedInitiated and Adhered to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant provided no documentary evidence of payment plans.

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 22, 2025
Answer filedAug 6, 2025Requested decision on the written record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMay 29, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Lack of Documentary Evidence to Support Claims of Financial Responsibility
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F

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 numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,946, which he attributed to unexpected expenses and poor financial planning. Despite the applicant's claims of making payment arrangements, he provided no documentary evidence to support his assertions, leading to a decision against him under Guideline F for failing to mitigate the financial concerns.

1.a–1.y 25 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).
Finding: Against Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.y	25 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00857 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Cassie Ford, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 05/29/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 25, 2024. On July 22, 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.

Applicant answered the SOR on August 6, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on January 9, 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. The FORM consists of seven exhibits. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 and 2 are the pleadings in the case. GX 3 through 7 are the evidence in support of the allegations in the SOR. GX 3 through 7 are admitted in evidence. Applicant received the FORM on March 11, 2026, and did not respond. The case was assigned to me on May 12, 2026. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations in the SOR. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 38-year-old administrative assistant employed by a federal contractor since October 2024. He has a high-school education. He has been in a common-law relationship since July 2007. He has no children. The SOR alleges 25 consumer debts totaling about $19,946. Nineteen of the debts are for less than $1,000. The debts are reflected in credit reports from November 2024, May 2025, and January 2026. (GX 4, 5, and 6) None of them are resolved. In Applicant’s answer, he attributed his delinquent debts to unexpected expenses and poor financial planning. He stated that he had made payment agreements for the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.m, 1.s, 1.u, and 1.v. He stated that he had contacted the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.k, 1.l, 1.r, 1.t, and 1.x, and arranged for one-time payoffs of each debt. He stated that he had contacted the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.f, 1.g, 1.j, 1.o, 1.p, 1.q, 1.w, and 1.y, and had received offers of payment options to settle the debts. He provided no documentary evidence of the payment arrangements or settlement offers and no documentary evidence that he had accepted any of the offers or made any payments. He stated that he intended to start making payments in September 2026. 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 2

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 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 of 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 3

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 ability to 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 irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the FORM establish two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 20(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; 4

AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the p

erson’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 individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; AG ¶ 20(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; and AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b) are not established. Applicant’s debts are numerous, recent, and were not incurred under circumstances making recurrence unlikely. To the contrary, Applicant admitted that the debts were the product of poor financial planning and not due to conditions largely beyond his control. AG ¶ 20(c) is not established. Applicant submitted no evidence of financial counseling, and his delinquent debts are not yet under control. AG ¶ 20(d) is not established. Applicant submitted no documentary evidence of his payment plans. An applicant who claims that a debt is being resolved is expected to present documentary evidence to support that claim. See ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016). He has not initiated any payments, and he does not plan to do so until September 2026. “Promises to pay or otherwise resolve delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner or otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner.” ISCR Case No. 17-04110 (App. Bd. Sep. 26, 2019) citing ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015). Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 5

participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Because Applicant requested a determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor or question him about his financial situation. See ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.y: Against Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge 6