Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00599 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/8/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Rhett Petcher
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00599, 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 25-00599granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00599

grantedApr 8, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 61-year-old employee of a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to financial difficulties stemming from a vehicle repossession and a medical bill. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were largely beyond her control and that she had made good-faith efforts to address her debts, ultimately granting her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to circumstances beyond her control, including caring for her mother during the COVID-19 pandemic and an automobile accident.
She demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her debts, having paid the medical bill and actively seeking to address the vehicle repossession debt.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 4, 2025
Answer filedJul 10, 2025
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2026rescheduled twice
Decision dateApr 8, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had two past-due debts related to a vehicle repossession and a medical bill. Both debts were attributed to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, and the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to address these financial issues, leading to a decision in favor of the applicant under Guideline F.

1.a Applicant admits a past-due vehicle repossession debt in the amount of about $17,946. She co-signed for her live-in son’s motor vehicle. He lost his job; and unbeknownst to Applicant, he stopped making his car payments.
$17,946
Finding: For 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):
(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly
(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts
Mitigation:
Claimed
Other
1.b Applicant admits a past-due medical bill to Creditor B in the amount of about $1,071. Applicant was injured as a result of her automobile accident.
$1,071
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Medical Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20):
(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly
(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts
Mitigation:
Documented
Debt Paid in Full

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits a past-due vehicle repossession debt in the amount of about $17,946. She co-signed for her live-in son’s motor vehicle. He lost his job; and unbeknownst to Applicant, he stopped making his car payments. $17,946	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant admits a past-due medical bill to Creditor B in the amount of about $1,071. Applicant was injured as a result of her automobile accident. $1,071	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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

UE c/ f::. '1. 0-~~~ 0 ~ ______________ __

STATEMENT OF CASE

____ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00599 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/08/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On June 4, 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant answered the SOR on July 10, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. (Answer.) The case was assigned to me on August 11, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on August 11, 2025, scheduling the hearing for October 1, 2025. However, this decision was delayed when all Administrative Judges were furloughed from October 1 through November 12, 2025, during a Federal Government shutdown due to a lapse in Federal funding. A second notice of hearing was issued on November 19, 2025, scheduling the hearing for January 27, 2026, however, Applicant failed to appear. Applicant averred that she was c

POLICIES

nfused as to the date and time of the hearing. A third notice of hearing was issued on January 30, 2026, scheduling the hearing for February 23, 2026. The hearing was convened as twice rescheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 6, which were admitted into evidence. Applicant testified on her own behalf and offered two documents, which I marked Applicant’s Exhibits (AppXs) A and B, and admitted into evidence. The record was left open until March 23, 2026, for receipt of additional documentation. Applicant offered four documents which were marked as Post Hearing Exhibits (PHXs) A through D, and admitted into evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on March 4, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant admitted to both allegations of the SOR, ¶¶ 1.a, and 1.b. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is a 61-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has been employed with the defense contractor since 1990. She is widowed and has three adult children. Applicant’s mother, a son, and two grandchildren live with her. Applicant attributes her financial difficulties to Covid, as she was unemployed for three months taking care of her mother who contracted Covid, and to an automobile accident. Applicant was also unaware of her son defaulting on a car loan which she co-signed. (TR at page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 19, and at page 13 line 6 to page 23 line 25.) Guideline F - Financial Considerations 1.a. Applicant admits a past-due vehicle repossession debt in the amount of about $17,946. She co-signed for her live-in son’s motor vehicle. He lost his job; and unbeknownst to Applicant, he stopped making his car payments. Since Applicant discovered the delinquency, she and her son have reached out to an assumed creditor about “50” times. The car dealership no longer exists; and as such, they have been relegated to making repeated telephone and email inquiries, but to no avail. This is also attested to by her son. A

ANALYSIS

plicant wants to pay the admitted debt, but she is unable to discern who to pay. (TR at page 26 line 17 to page 31 line 4, AppX B and PHX C.) 2

1.b. Applicant admits a past-due medical bill to Creditor B in the amount of about $1,071. Applicant was injured as a result of her automobile accident. Her elderly mother would routinely collect Applicant’s mail and file it away in a bag. Applicant was unaware of the medical bill until she discovered the hidden mail bag, and she paid it in September of 2025, as evidenced by documentation. (TR at page 24 line 19 to page 26 line 16, and AppX B.) 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 all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

he 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 delib

FORMAL FINDINGS

rately 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. 3

Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that adverse dec

CONCLUSION

sions 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 conce