Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00491 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date3/25/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: George A. Hawkins, Esq.
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00491, 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 25-00491denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00491

deniedMar 25, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 29-year-old fitness trainer employed by a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple failures to file federal income tax returns and a history of delinquent debts. Despite a high income and some debt resolution, the applicant's lack of timely action on tax obligations and continued financial irresponsibility led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for multiple years, which raised significant security concerns.
Despite a high income, the applicant's financial management was deemed careless and irresponsible, particularly regarding tax obligations and delinquent debts.
The applicant's claims of resolving debts were not supported by sufficient evidence, and actions taken were primarily in response to the security clearance process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 25, 2025
Answer filedJul 6, 2025
Hearing heldFeb 27, 2026conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateMar 25, 2026

Cite For

Failure to File Federal Income Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Careless Financial Management Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Sufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Debt Resolution

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 failure to file federal income tax returns and various delinquent debts. Despite some debts being resolved, the applicant's overall financial irresponsibility and failure to file taxes as required led to a denial of the security clearance.

1.a failure to file federal income tax returns as required for tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Filing Failure
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b personal loan charged off for $393
$393
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Personal Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.c auto loan charged off for $3,000
$3,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Auto Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.d unsecured loan charged off for $10,000
$10,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.e payday loan placed for collection of $1,446
$1,446
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.f payday loan placed for collection of $1,604
$1,604
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.g sporting goods store account placed for collection of $395
$395
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.h credit-card account charged off for $2,038
$2,038
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.i telecommunications account placed for collection of $1,258
$1,258
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.j Federal tax debt in the approximate amount of $20,000 for tax year 2021
$20,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failure to file federal income tax returns as required for tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	personal loan charged off for $393 $393	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	auto loan charged off for $3,000 $3,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	unsecured loan charged off for $10,000 $10,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.e	payday loan placed for collection of $1,446 $1,446	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	payday loan placed for collection of $1,604 $1,604	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.g	sporting goods store account placed for collection of $395 $395	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.h	credit-card account charged off for $2,038 $2,038	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.i	telecommunications account placed for collection of $1,258 $1,258	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Federal tax debt in the approximate amount of $20,000 for tax year 2021 $20,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—

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

e matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00491 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Gover

DECISION

ment: George A. Hawkins, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/25/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves

STATEMENT OF CASE

security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on August 29, 2023. On April 25, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). 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 July 6, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on September 5, 2025. The case was assigned to me on January 6, 2026. On January 13, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled

FINDINGS OF FACT

to be conducted by video teleconference on February 27, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX 1 through 7 were admitted in evidence without objection. GX 6 is a summary of several interviews of Applicant by a security investigator. It is not authenticated as required by Directive ¶ E3.1.20, but Applicant waived the authentication requirement. (Tr. 9) Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of the facts contained in three Internal Revenue Service documents, which are marked as GX 8, 10, and 11, and the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7508. I took administrative notice as requested. At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to add SOR ¶ 1.c, alleging that Applicant was indebted to the federal government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $20,000 for tax year 2021, and that the tax obligation remained unpaid as of the date of the hearing. (Tr. 57). After the hearing, he submitted a written confirmation of the motion. (Hearing Exhibit I) I granted the motion, but I have renumbered the allegation as SOR ¶ 1.j. Applicant testified but did not present the testimony of any other witnesses. He submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through H, which were admitted without objection. I kept the record open until March 20, 2026, to enable him to submit additional documentary evidence. He did not submit any additional evidence. DOHA received the transcript on March 19, 2025. The record closed on March 20, 2025. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted the allegations in the SOR. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 29-year-old fitness trainer employed by a defense contractor. He provides training for military and civilian personnel deployed to Saudi Arabia. He graduated from high school in June 2015. He served on active duty in the U.S. Army from February 2016 to February 2020 and received an honorable discharge. He received a security clearance while on active duty. He married in 2017 and separated in 2019. (Tr. 27). Applicant was unemployed after his discharge from the Army until November 2020, when he was hired by a federal contractor. He was employed by a federal contractor in a foreign country from November 2020 to April 2022. He was fired in April 2022 for consuming alcohol off the base. (Tr. 33) He has been employed by a federal contractor in an overseas location since December 2024. (Tr. 23) He earns more than $100,000 per year. (Tr. 34) He has a net remainder of between $6,000 and $8,000 each month after paying all his bills and expenses. (Tr. 49-50) He has about $17,000 in his checking account. (Tr. 51) SOR ¶ 1.a alleges failure to file federal income tax returns as required for tax years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. IRS tax transcripts establish this allegation. (GX 2 at 5-12) Applicant testified at the hearing that he did not file his federal tax return for 2020 because 2

of COVID. (Tr. 18-19) He did not describe how COVID prevented him from timely filing his return for that year. Applicant also testified that, based on advice from his manager, he believed he had three years after returning from overseas to file his tax returns. (Tr. 19, 35-36, 56) If he received such advice, it was erroneous. I have taken administrative notice, based on the administrative notice materials submitted by D

POLICIES

partment Counsel, that U.S. federal tax laws do not provide for a three-year grace period for filing tax returns for overseas employment. Incorrect tax advice from non-professionals is not uncommon, and I found Applicant’s testimony credible when he testified that he received incorrect advice from his manager. However, he learned that his unfiled tax returns were a security issue when he was interviewed by a security investigator in January 2024, and he told the investigator that he planned to resolve his tax issues by April 2024. (GX 6 at 14). He did not file his returns after that interview. He was reminded that his unfiled tax returns raised security issues when he received the SOR, but he had not resolved them as of the date of the hearing. At the hearing, he testified that he has hired a certified public accountant (CPA) to prepare his tax returns, and his CPA is reviewing the tax debt for tax year 2021. He stated that he intends to file his remaining past-due tax returns when he returns to the United States in April 2026. (Tr. 37-38) I have found his repeated promises to file his past- due returns unconvincing. SOR ¶¶ 1.b-1.i allege delinquent debts reflected in credit reports from April 2025, August 2024, September 2023, and January 2026. (GX 3, 4, 5, and 7) The evidence pertaining to each debt is summarized below. SOR ¶ 1.b: personal loan charged off for $393. Applicant paid this debt on May 1, 2025. (AX B) SOR ¶ 1.c: auto loan charged off for $3,000. Applicant settled this debt for $1,500 on May 1, 2025. (AX F) SOR ¶ 1.d: unsecured loan charged off for $10,000. On May 1, 2025, Applicant settled this debt for $5,213, to be paid in four installments. (AX G) SOR ¶ 1.e: payday loan placed for collection of $1,446. Applicant paid this debt on May 1, 2025. (AX D) SOR ¶ 1.f: payday loan placed for collection of $1,604. Applicant paid this debt on May 1, 2025. (AX E) SOR ¶ 1.g: sporting goods store account placed for collection of $395. Applicant paid this debt on May 1, 2025. (AX C) SOR ¶ 1.h: credit-card account charged off for $2,038. Applicant paid this debt on May 1, 2025. (AX A) 3

ANALYSIS

SOR ¶ 1.i: telecommunications account placed for collection of $1,258. Applicant submitted no evidence showing resolution of this debt. SOR ¶ 1.j (added in amendment to the SOR): Federal tax debt in the approximate amount of $20,000 for tax year 2021. Applicant testified that he filed his federal tax return for tax year 2021, that he owed about $20,000 in taxes, and that he was paying $500 per month on the tax debt. (Tr. 23) He provided no documentary evidence that he had filed his 2021 return and no evidence of payments on the tax debt for that year. When an applicant claims that a debt is being paid, he or she is expected to present documentary evidence supporting that claim. See ISCR Case No. 15-03363 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2016). 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 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 4

evidence is “s

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

ch 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 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

FORMAL FINDINGS

sclearly 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 abou

CONCLUSION

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 mi