Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00728 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date6/16/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00728, 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 25-00728denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00728

deniedJun 16, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 49-year-old program analyst and Army veteran, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant unresolved financial issues, including over $48,000 in consumer debts and tax arrears exceeding $37,000. The applicant admitted to all debts but failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve them, leading to the conclusion that his financial problems raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to significant unresolved debts and tax issues.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of any efforts to mitigate his financial problems.
The applicant did not file tax returns for multiple years, raising concerns about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns

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 issuedOct 29, 2025
Answer filedJan 16, 2026Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateJun 16, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Mitigation Efforts
Impact of Failure to File Tax Returns 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 significant unresolved financial issues, including multiple delinquent debts and tax arrears, which raised security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant's claims of working to resolve these issues were not substantiated with evidence, leading to a decision against the applicant on all allegations.

1.a Credit Card ONE – Charge Off ($24,126)
$24,126
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.b Auto Loan – Charge Off ($18,734)
$18,734
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: —
1.c Credit Card TWO - Delinquent ($3,250)
$3,250
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.d Mortgage Payments – Delinquent ($2,150)
$2,150
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Mortgage or Home Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.e Failure to File Federal Tax Return (2019)
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.f Federal Tax Debt - $5,517 (2020)
$5,517
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.g Federal Tax Debt - $11,893 (2021)
$11,893
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.h Federal Tax Debt - $11,544 (2022)
$11,544
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.i Failure to File Federal Tax Return (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.j Federal Tax Debt - $8,937 (2024)
$8,937
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Tax Unpaid
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(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	Credit Card ONE – Charge Off ($24,126) $24,126	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Auto Loan – Charge Off ($18,734) $18,734	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Credit Card TWO - Delinquent ($3,250) $3,250	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Mortgage Payments – Delinquent ($2,150) $2,150	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Failure to File Federal Tax Return (2019)	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.f	Federal Tax Debt - $5,517 (2020) $5,517	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.g	Federal Tax Debt - $11,893 (2021) $11,893	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.h	Federal Tax Debt - $11,544 (2022) $11,544	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.i	Failure to File Federal Tax Return (2023)	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.j	Federal Tax Debt - $8,937 (2024) $8,937	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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

A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Gu

DECISION

ideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Ca

STATEMENT OF CASE

se Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on April 7, 2025 (Questionnaire). On October 29, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 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) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017.

On January 16, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that this case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, Applicant admitted to all the debt and tax

FINDINGS OF FACT

issues alleged in the SOR. On March 25, 2026, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 to 8 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on April 9, 2026. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns, but did not respond within the specified 30-day period. The case was assigned to me on June 12, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 49 years old and has worked for a DoD contractor since 2017 as a program analyst. Applicant served in the Army from 1997 – 2017, then he retired honorably as a Sergeant First Class (E 7). He completed his first application for a security clearance in connection with his Army service, then applied again while sponsored by this DoD contractor. He has been married since 1999 and has two grown children. He received a bachelor’s degree in 2013. (GE 3 at 5, 8-10, 15, 20-21, 28) SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he has delinquent and unresolved debts and tax issues, including consumer debts totaling over $48,000 and tax arrears in excess of $37,000. I find the following facts regarding the history and status of these issues: 1.a. Credit Card ONE – Charge Off ($24,126): Applicant admitted this debt in his Answer and acknowledged it in his Questionnaire. He opened this line of credit in March 1995 but did not explain the nature of the expenses or why he got behind in his payments. In his responses to interrogatories submitted on July 27, 2023, he claimed to be making payments toward this debt but did not provide any evidence in support. (Answer; GE 3 at 31; GE 4 at 3: GE 5 at 10; GE 6 at 1; GE 7 at 2; GE 8 at 5) 1.b. Auto Loan – Charge Off ($18,734): Applicant admitted this debt in his Answer. In his Questionnaire, however, he acknowledged a different auto loan debt to the same bank on a car that was purchased on August 19, 2017, for $24,000, then repossessed in May 2023. Applicant reported owing about $4,000 on this debt, but the amount shown in the credit reports provided by the Government reveal an outstanding balance of $18,734 – as alleged. The $4,000 debt to which Applicant apparently refers in his Questionnaire is a separate auto loan taken out from the same bank on May 17, 2017, for $33,000. After sale of that repossessed vehicle, the remaining debt is $4,086. The debt the Government chose to allege in S

OR ¶ 1.b, however, is for the outstanding $18,734 due on the $24,000 auto loan. Applicant did not explain why he failed to make the payments on either loan. (Answer; GE 3 at 32; GE 6 at 3; GE 7 at 2-3; GE 8 at 4, 6) 2

1.c. Credit Card TWO - Delinquent ($3,250): Applicant admitted this debt in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. In his July 27, 2023, responses to interrogatories, he avers to having paid off the debt but failed to provide evidence of the same. The most recent credit report provided by the Government (March 25, 2026) shows the balance of the loan has grown to $8,676 with a payment past-due amount of $76. Applicant did not discuss the nature of his expenditures or why he has been behind on payments. (Answer; GE 3 at 33; GE 6 at 2; GE 7 at 3; GE 8 at 7) 1.d. Mortgage Payments – Delinquent ($2,150): Applicant admitted this debt in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. He took out a $311,592 mortgage on January 12, 2021, and per the credit reports provided by the Government, has been late on monthly payments on more than one occasion. In his July 27, 2023, responses to interrogatories, he avers to having paid off the debt but failed to provide evidence of the same. The most recent credit report provided by the Government (March 25, 2026) shows the balance of the mortgage is $268,301 with a payment past-due amount of $2,047. (Answer; GE 3 at 33; GE 6 at 2; GE 7 at 3; GE 8 at 2) 1.e. Failure to File Federal Tax Return (2019): Applicant admitted not filing his 2019 federal tax return in both his Answer and the Questionnaire. He stated that his failure to file was due to the Covid epidemic – and procrastination. In his Questionnaire he suggested that he was “currently working to resolve past tax situation through a legal tax expert,” but as of the date of his response to interrogatories (July 7, 2025) he still had not filed his taxes. (A

POLICIES

nswer; GE 3 at 29-30; GE 4 at 9; GE 5 at 5, 8, 14) 1.f. Federal Tax Debt - $5,517 (2020): Applicant admitted to these arrears in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. He filed the federal tax return for that year but has not settled the debt. Applicant did not provide any information about any plans he might have to pay back taxes. (Answer; GE 3 at 30; GE 4 at 5, 15) 1.g. Federal Tax Debt - $11,893 (2021): Applicant admitted to these arrears in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. He filed the federal tax return for that year but has not settled the debt. Applicant did not provide any information about any plans he might have to pay back taxes. (Answer; GE 3 at 30; GE 4 at 5, 17) 1.h. Federal Tax Debt - $11,544 (2022): Applicant admitted to these arrears in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. He filed the federal tax return for that year but has not settled the debt. Applicant did not provide any information about any plans he might have to pay

back taxes. (Answer; GE 3 at 30; GE 4 at 5, 19) 1.i. Failure to File Federal Tax Return (2023): Applicant admitted not filing his 2023 federal tax return in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. In his response to interrogatories submitted on July 7, 2025, he claimed to have filed his 2023 tax return some time in 2024. However, the IRS Account Transcript for the 2023 tax year, dated September 16, 2025, reports “No tax return filed.” Applicant did not provide any 3

ANALYSIS

information about any plans he might have to file this federal tax return. (Answer; GE 3 at 29-30; GE 4 at 9; GE 5 at 5, 21, 1.j. Federal Tax Debt - $8,937 (2024): Applicant admitted to these arrears in his Answer but did not mention it in his Questionnaire. He filed the federal tax return for that year but has not settled the debt. Applicant did not provide any information about any plans he might have to pay

back taxes. (Answer; GE 3 at 30; GE 4 at 5, 22) Whole Person Evidence Applicant submitted no comments or explanations in his Answer as whole person evidence in mitigation of the security concerns alleged in the SOR. The comments and explanations Applicant included in both his Questionnaire and interrogatories, however, were reviewed in their entirety. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 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, these guidelines are applied 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. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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, “Any 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “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 favor

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

able clearance decision.” 4

A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 national security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) Analysis SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part: 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 inform

FORMAL FINDINGS

ation. 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 engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. The facts of th

CONCLUSION

is case establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions set forth in AG ¶ 19 to all the allegations under Guideline F: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. 5