Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00890 · CASE

ISCR Case 25-00890denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00890

deniedApr 10, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 28-year-old defense contractor with a high school education, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to a significant past-due motor vehicle debt of approximately $41,954, co-signed for by his sister. Despite admitting responsibility for the debt, the applicant failed to demonstrate efforts to resolve the financial issue, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a significant past-due debt and failed to take adequate steps to address it.
The applicant attempted to transfer financial responsibility to his sister without evidence of resolution.
The applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not mitigated by any circumstances beyond his control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 13, 2025
Answer filedAug 20, 2025
Hearing heldMar 2, 2026
Decision dateApr 10, 2026

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Mitigation of Financial Issues
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility 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 that the applicant had a past-due motor vehicle debt of approximately $41,954, which he co-signed for his sister. Despite admitting responsibility for the debt, the applicant failed to demonstrate any efforts to mitigate the financial issues, leading to a decision against his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline F.

1.a Applicant admits that he has a past-due, motor vehicle debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $41,954.
$41,954
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Auto Loan 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	Applicant admits that he has a past-due, motor vehicle debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $41,954. $41,954	Against Applicant	Auto Loan 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

UE c/ f::. '1. 0-~~~ 0 ~ ______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00890 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/10/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On August 13, 2025, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the DoD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The SOR further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. 1

Applicant answered the SOR on August 20, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. (Answer.) The case was assigned to me on December 8, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on January 7, 2026, scheduling the hearing for March 2, 2026. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 5, which were admitted into evidence. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered a document, which I marked Applicant’s Exhibit (AppX) A, and was admitted into evidence. The record was left open until April 2, 2026, for receipt of additional documentation. Applicant offered a document, which I marked AppX B, which was admitted into evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on March 16, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant admitted to the allegation in SOR, ¶ 1.a. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has a high school education. Applicant is not married but has one minor child. (TR at page 5 line 18 to page 6 line 19, and at page 13 line 2 to page 14 line 19.) Guideline F - Financial Considerations 1.a. Applicant admits that he has

a past-due, motor vehicle debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $41,954. He co-signed for a vehicle, which his sister purchased in July of 2022. She made a few payments, but Applicant was made aware that the auto loan became delinquent in October of 2022, about three and a half years ago. During that period, he reached out to Creditor A “only twice.” During his hearing, Applicant took full responsibility for the past-due debt, but after his hearing he submitted a letter from his sister stating that she now takes full responsibility for the past-due debt. There is no evidence that Applicant has done anything else t o address this admitted past-due debt. (TR at page 14 at line 20 to page 24 line 2, at page 25 lines 3~25 and AppX A.) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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 national security eligibility. 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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 2

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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states 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, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive Order (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 relating to the guideline 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 3

engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant co-signed for a $41,000 motor vehicle loan, for which he takes full responsibility. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 including: (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; and (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the per

son'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. Neither of these apply. Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing. He has only tried to switch financial responsibility to his sister, who appears to be financially irresponsible. He has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20 has not been established. Financial Considerations is found against Applicant. Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The 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 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; 4

________________________ (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Financial Considerations security concern. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant national security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge 5