Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-01118 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/28/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 25-01118) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Andre Gregorian, Esq.
Judge: Jeff A. Nagel
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-01118, 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 25-01118denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-01118

deniedApr 28, 2026· Hon. Jeff A. Nagel· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 57-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to failure to file federal income tax returns for multiple years and owing approximately $12,260 in delinquent taxes. Despite entering a payment agreement with the IRS post-hearing, the judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient good faith efforts to resolve his tax issues, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2013, 2014, and 2020.
The applicant owed approximately $12,260 in delinquent taxes and had not made payments for years.
The applicant's post-hearing payment agreement with the IRS was deemed insufficient to demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve his tax issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure 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.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe 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.The applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(g)rejectedThe Individual Has Made Arrangements with the Appropriate Tax Authority to File or Pay the Amount Owed and Is in Compliance with Those Arrangements.The applicant's payment schedule was not considered a good-faith effort to resolve his tax issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information.”
ISCR Case No. 17-01382 at 4 (App. Bd. May 16, 2018)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 21, 2025
Answer filedDec 12, 2025
Hearing heldApr 14, 2026
Decision dateApr 28, 2026

Cite For

Failure to File Federal Income Tax Returns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Tax Issues
Impact of Financial Distress 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 failed to file timely federal income tax returns for multiple years and is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes totaling over $11,000. The applicant's financial issues were deemed unresolved, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline F.

1.a Applicant failed to file timely, as required, Federal income tax returns for at least tax years 2013, 2014, and 2020. Applicant admitted to this and has still not filed them.
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 Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $4,691.53 for tax year 2022. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt.
$4,691
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: —
1.c Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $5,310.78 for tax year 2023. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt.
$5,310
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: —
1.d Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $1,343.30 for tax year 2024. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt.
$1,343
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	Applicant failed to file timely, as required, Federal income tax returns for at least tax years 2013, 2014, and 2020. Applicant admitted to this and has still not filed them.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $4,691.53 for tax year 2022. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. $4,691	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $5,310.78 for tax year 2023. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. $5,310	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $1,343.30 for tax year 2024. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. $1,343	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

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applican

STATEMENT OF CASE

for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01118 Appearances For Government: Andre Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/28/2026 Decision NAGEL, Jeff A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the Guideline F (Financial Considerations) security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted his latest security clearance application (SCA) on March 14, 2024, in connection with his employment in the defense industry. On November 21, 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 Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on December 12, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The department counsel was prepared to proceed on March 5, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on March 23, 2026. The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 14, 2026. The Government called no witnesses and

FINDINGS OF FACT

submitted Government Exhibits (GE’s) 1 through 4, which I admitted into evidence without objection.

Applicant testified on his own behalf, called no witnesses, and requested that the record remain open until April 22, 2026, to provide post-hearing exhibits. Applicant provided a payment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) he had entered into after the Hearing, as well as a payment schedule. I marked his submission as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A and admitted it into evidence without objection. DOHA received the electronic transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 23, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 57-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is a divorcee and has two adult children. Even though Applicant is divorced, he still lives with his ex-wife, and they share many joint expenses. Applicant has a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing and has worked for his current employer since 2018. Applicant is a field specialist and does IT support and works a part-time job for a local school district. Applicant was previously granted a security clearance in March of 2020. (Tr. at 8, 22, 23, 27, 28, GE 2) At the Hearing, the Government withdrew allegation 1.e.; which concerned the failure to file Colorado state tax returns. The remaining allegations in the SOR allege that Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2013, 2014 and 2020 and that he is in debt to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $11,300, covering tax years 2022-2024. Applicant admitted to the remaining allegations as well as that he knew, given his security clearance history, that failing to file his tax returns or failing to pay his taxes could jeopardize his clearance. (Tr. at 9 ,29) Applicant’s financial problems date back to when he purchased a family home that he could not afford. He ended up selling this home in 2013 which is really what “got the ball rolling” because he no longer had the homeownership write-off, and he was living beyond his means. For several years Applicant had not had the appropriate amount of taxes withheld from his pay and as a result he owed taxes each of those years. Applicant subsequently modified his deductions so as to not have the same problem. (Tr. at 32, 33, 36, GE 3) Applicant testified: When I had the house, prior to selling, I was doing my taxes, because I did have it as a write-off at that point. So, it was beneficial to do that. But, what really hurt me with my

POLICIES

taxes was, once we left the house, it was no longer a deduction for me. So, that's where the tax really hit me, was at that point. So, yeah. 2013, we sold the house, and you listed, I think, 2013 was the time when I hadn't done my taxes, which is quite possible. (Tr. at 33) Applicant has filed his Federal Tax Returns of 2025 and believes he will be receiving a refund of $513 which he expected to apply towards what he owes the IRS. While Applicant was preparing for the Hearing he went onto the IRS website and saw that 2

the amount he owes them has increased due to interest and penalties and now stands at $12,260. When questioned about this by the Administrative Judge, Applicant admitted that he has not made payment arrangements or paid on them in years. (Tr. at 38-40) Department Counsel asked Applicant if he had any documentation showing that he had filed his Federal Tax Returns for 2013, 2014, and 2020. Applicant testified “I could. I'd have to look. I'd have to look. Yeah. I'd have to -- I do have a lot of hard copies laying around. I'd have to see if I still have stuff from when I met with the Agent. So, yeah. It's just a matter of gathering stuff up.” (Tr. at 38) After the Hearing Applicant entered into a payment schedule with the IRS

ANALYSIS

The documentation Applicant provided shows that between April 30, 2026, and August 28, 2026, he will be paying the IRS $2,147 of the $12,260 he admitted he owed in unpaid taxes. (Tr. at 39, AE A) SOR Allegations: 1.a. Applicant failed to file timely, as required, Federal income tax returns for at least tax years 2013, 2014, and 2020. Applicant admitted to this and has still not filed them. (Tr. at 46) 1.b. Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $4,691.53 for tax year 2022. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. (Tr. at 46, AE A) 1.c. Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $5,310.78 for tax year 2023. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. (Tr. at 46, AE A) 1.d. Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the amount of $1,343.30 for tax year 2024. Applicant admitted to this and established a payment schedule with the IRS to pay off a portion of his tax debt. (Tr. at 46, AE A) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD 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 3

disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the gui

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

elines 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 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. 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, the Government must 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.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of le

CONCLUSION

ally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of 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