Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00833 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date5/26/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 25-00833) →See the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 25-00833) →See the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 25-00833) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Jenny Bayer, Esq.
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00833, 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 25-00833denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00833

deniedMay 26, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 36-year-old government contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to three delinquent accounts totaling approximately $85,000. Despite claims of financial hardship due to unemployment and efforts to make payments, the judge found insufficient evidence of a formal payment arrangement or a track record of financial responsibility, leading to the denial of security clearance eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a formal payment arrangement with creditors.
The applicant's financial delinquencies were deemed recent and ongoing, indicating a lack of financial responsibility.
The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or resolve debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 22, 2025
Answer filedAug 27, 2025
Hearing heldN/ADecision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 26, 2026Decision on remand.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Recent and Ongoing Financial Delinquencies as Disqualifying Factors
Lack of Formal Payment Arrangements with Creditors as a Basis for Denial

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 against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, determining that the applicant's financial delinquencies were recent and ongoing, and that he did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts. The applicant's claims of financial hardship due to unemployment were acknowledged, but insufficient evidence was provided to mitigate the security concerns raised by his delinquent accounts.

1.a A personal loan charged off in the amount of $53,649 listed in SOR ¶ 1.a.
$53,649
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Personal Loan 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 charged off in the amount of $20,716 listed in SOR ¶ 1.b.
$20,716
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 credit card charged off in the amount of $10,950 listed in SOR ¶ 1.c.
$10,950
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: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	A personal loan charged off in the amount of $53,649 listed in SOR ¶ 1.a. $53,649	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	A credit card charged off in the amount of $20,716 listed in SOR ¶ 1.b. $20,716	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	A credit card charged off in the amount of $10,950 listed in SOR ¶ 1.c. $10,950	Against Applicant	Credit Card 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

er, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 05/26/2026 Decision on R

STATEMENT OF CASE

mand Dorsey, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On July 22, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant responded to the SOR on August 27, 2025 (Answer), and requested a decision based on the written record by an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The Government submitted its written file of relevant material (FORM) on January 14, 2026. A complete copy of the FORM was provided to Applicant, along with information advising him that he had 30 days from his date of receipt to make objections to evidence, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on February 7, 2026, and provided an undated response. (FORM Response). In the FORM Response, he indicated that “any factual conclusions drawn solely from [the unverified summaries of Enhanced Summary Interviews, identified as Items 13 and 14] are objected to as unauthenticated and entitled to reduced evidentiary weight.” The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM, marked as Items 1 through 12, were admitted in evidence, without

objection. Applicant objected to the entry in evidence of Items 13 and 14 as unauthenticated personal subject interviews. His objection is sustained, and Items 13 and 14 are not admitted in evidence. The FORM Response is admitted in evidence without objection. On March 31, 2026, after a thorough review of the record evidence, I issued a decision finding that it was not clearly consistent with national security to continue Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. After a timely appeal, on May 19, 2026, a majority of the Appeal Board remanded the matter back to me to consider additional evidence it discovered after I closed the record. This evidence consisted of documents that Applicant apparently attached to the Answer but were not pro

FINDINGS OF FACT

ided to me as part of the case file prior to my March 31, 2026 decision. Applicant described these documents as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through U, but he did not mark his exhibits, so I do not find identifying them as such to be a helpful classification. In its decision, the Appeal Board described the documents that it found as the “zip” file, so that is how I will refer to it. The zip file consists of 61 pages. After reviewing the record evidence in this matter, including the zip file, I make the following findings of fact. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a government contractor for which he has been employed since about August 2024. He is often deployed outside of the United States for his work. He graduated from high school in 2007 and earned a certificate in administration of justice in 2015. He has been in a civil marriage since 2018. He has two children, ages 16 and 4. He served on active duty in the Army from 2009 until 2013, when he earned an honorable discharge. He served on inactive reserve duty in the Army National Guard from 2014 until 2019, when he earned an honorable discharge. (FORM Response; Items 2-4; zip file) In the SOR, the Government alleged that Applicant had three delinquent accounts totaling about $85,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.c). In the Answer, he admitted the SOR allegations with additional comments. His admissions are adopted in my findings of fact. The SOR allegations are established by his admissions and his and the Government’s credit reports. The nature and status of the SOR accounts is as follows. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) A personal loan charged off in the amount of $53,649 listed in SOR ¶ 1.a. and a credit card charged off in the amount of $20,716 listed in SOR ¶ 1.b. Applicant opened these accounts with the same creditor in 2019 and August 2022, respectively. He became delinquent on the account in SOR ¶ 1.a in 2020, when he lost his job because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The creditor charged off the account in SOR ¶ 1.bin J une 2022. The zip file contains documents showing a seven-minute call to the creditor of these accounts in May 2025, and a thirteen-minute call in July 2025. It also reflects several cancelled calls. It’s unclear what was discussed during these phone calls. The zip file also reflects that, in August 2025, he sent the creditor of these accounts a written message (possibly via its phone application) offering to set up a payment plan to pay off his 2

“outstanding loans.” He wrote that he would transfer $1,600 and then would like to pay $150 on each account for an indeterminate period of time until he was able to save up enough money to pay the accounts off. He wrote that he could not complete calls to the creditor because he was overseas and hoped he could make a payment arrangement via the creditor’s mobile app. The creditor responded with what appears to be an automated message indicating that he would have to call its recovery department to make a payment arrangement and listed a toll-free number to call. Applicant provided a bank statement showing two debits of $300 in September 2025, but it is unclear to whom those payments were directed. His documents reflect a $1,600 deposit to a bank account with the creditor of these accounts on August 1, 2025, but there is no indication that this money was paid toward either of these SOR accounts. He claimed that these documents corroborated that he made a $1,600 payment to the creditor and entered into a payment plan to make monthly payments of $1

POLICIES

0 per month. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) In the FORM Response, Applicant provided a document dated October 2025 from the current servicer of the account in SOR ¶ 1.a reflecting a loan balance of $53,349, which is $300 less than the balance listed in the SOR. This document reflected payments since July 2021 of $6,320, but it does not list when those payments were made or in what amount. The Government’s February 2023 credit report reflects a balance on this account of $53,703, which drops to $53,649 on the September 2024 credit report and $56,349 on the December 2025 credit report. The documentary evidence, including the zip file, reflects the balance on the account in SOR ¶ 1.a was $56,349 when the record closed. Applicant claimed that a payment arrangement on the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.bwas part of a financial recovery plan that he seemed to indicate was part of the zip file. However, after carefully reviewing that file, I was unable to identify a doc

ument that I would consider a financial recovery plan. The documentary evidence does not support his claim of a formal payment arrangement with the creditor for these two SOR accounts. Instead, the documenta

ANALYSIS

yevidence reflects a payment arrangement offer that the creditor did not accept, and one $300 payment credited to the account in SOR ¶ 1.a in about September 2025. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) A credit card charged off in the amount of $10,950 listed in SOR ¶ 1.c. Applicant opened this account in 2015. His last payment on the account was in December 2022. He claimed that he made a payment arrangement on this account for a time before he lost a job in September 2023. He did not provide any documentation corroborating this claim. He stopped making payments when he lost his job in September 2023 and lost track of the creditor. He provided no documents regarding any resolution efforts he made on this account. He claimed he will address this account when he finishes paying the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) Applicant claimed that he fell behind on these debts because of unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic (unemployed from October 2020 until January 2022), unemployment because of hostile working conditions at a former job (unemployed from September 2023 until August 2024), underemployment, and a downturn in the market of government contractor jobs. He provided documents related to resigning from his job with 3

a government contractor in October 2023 because of a dirty and moldy air conditioning unit. He also provided documents that show him following up on employment leads and evidence efforts to find new employment. He started a laundromat business that was hampered by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, and this issue also caused him financial problems. He claimed this business no longer loses money. He provided a document that reflects charges that the business incurred. He also had a child who was born prematurely and required expensive medical care. He provided documents showing that he made substantial payments to his child’s mother to provide child support for his son. He acknowledged that these payments went toward child support arrearages. Delinquent child support payments were not alleged in the SOR, so I will not consider that evidence for disqualification purposes. I will consider it in my whole-person and mitigation analysis. (FORM Response; Items 2-5; zip file) Applicant claimed that, despite these setbacks, he acted responsibly by maintaining his child-support payments, making payments to his creditors when he was able, disclosing his financial issues, and consistently looking for employment when he was unemployed. He alleged that Chinese-based firms attempted to contact him in response to his job searches, but he did not respond because of his loyalty to the United States. (FORM Response; Items 2-5; zip file) Applicant settled two other accounts originally held by the same creditor holding the accounts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. Credit reports show that he has satisfied several other loans from this creditor over the years. He also satisfied a DOD overpayment. (FORM Response; Items 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) Applicant provided a personal financial statement from May 2025 that reflected a net surplus of $2,750 after paying $1,100 per month on the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b and $350 per month on the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c. As discussed herein, the documentary evidence in the record does not corroborate that he made these budgeted payments to SOR creditors. His net surplus is based on a net monthly salary of $6,433 and other monthly income of $4,400 from a source that he described as “house built on family land.” He did not provide an explanation as to how he earns $4,400 monthly from a house on family land but provided a LEXISNEXIS document showing a

ANALYSIS

arrangement offer that the creditor did not accept, and one $300 payment credited to the account in SOR ¶ 1.a in about September 2025. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) A credit card charged off in the amount of $10,950 listed in SOR ¶ 1.c. Applicant opened this account in 2015. His last payment on the account was in December 2022. He claimed that he made a payment arrangement on this account for a time before he lost a job in September 2023. He did not provide any documentation corroborating this claim. He stopped making payments when he lost his job in September 2023 and lost track of the creditor. He provided no documents regarding any resolution efforts he made on this account. He claimed he will address this account when he finishes paying the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. (FORM Response; Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12; zip file) Applicant claimed that he fell behind on these debts because of unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic (unemployed from October 2020 until January 2022), unemployment because of hostile working conditions at a former job (unemployed from September 2023 until August 2024), underemployment, and a downturn in the market of government contractor jobs. He provided documents related to resigning from his job with 3

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

parcel of real property in his name with a tax-assessed value of $537,000. He provided a paystub corroborating the accuracy of this net monthly salary from January 2025. However, a subsequent paystub he provided from May 2025 reflected zero gross pay. A reasonable reading of these documents in the context of his other narrative statements is that he was not deployed for the pay period ending in May 2025. It is unclear what his current income status is, i.e., whether he is deployed and earning an income, or not deployed and not earning an income. He also referenced a work schedule that shows him as deployed for several months and then (presumably) not working for several months. The credit reports do not reflect any additional delinquent debts. (FORM Response; Items 2-5, 7-12; zip file) Applicant provided character-reference letters from colleagues (including a former supervisor) and friends who attested to his outstanding honesty, trustworthiness, character, integrity, and strong work ethic. To the extent they opined, the writers believed 4

that Applicant should be awarded security clearance eligibility. The writers indicated that they are aware of his financial issues but did not indicate they have reviewed the SOR. (Item 2) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 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 informatio

FORMAL FINDINGS

. 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 sc

CONCLUSION

utiny 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. 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,