Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-01359 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/28/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Aubrey De Angelis
Judge: Jeff A. Nagel
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-01359, 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 25-01359denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-01359

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

Synopsis

The applicant, a 53-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant outstanding debts totaling approximately $54,000. Despite his long-term employment and plans to address his debts with an anticipated inheritance, the judge found insufficient evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve the financial issues, leading to a denial of his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $54,000, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.
The applicant did not provide documentation to support claims of financial responsibility or mitigation.
The applicant's financial problems have persisted since at least 2006, raising doubts about his reliability and judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2025
Answer filedJan 8, 2026
Hearing heldApr 10, 2026
Decision dateApr 28, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Financial History on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility in Mitigating Circumstances

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 did not mitigate the financial concerns under Guideline F, which included nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $54,000. All allegations were ruled against the applicant, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

1.a Applicant has a debt on a travel trailer he purchased in June of 2023 and was repossessed in October of 2025. This debt has been charged off in the approximate amount of $15,958.00.
$15,958
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.b Applicant is indebted on a car loan that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $10,564.00.
$10,564
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 Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $501.00.
$501
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 Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $439.00.
$439
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.e Applicant is indebted on credit card that he signed on for his son. This account is past due in the approximate amount of $183.00, with a total balance of $604.00.
$183
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.f Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $1,410.00, with a total balance of $29,372.00.
$1,410
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.g Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $625.00, with a total balance of $12,730.00.
$625
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.h Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $548.00, with a total balance of $7,729.00.
$548
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.i Applicant was indebted on a vehicle he co-signed for his mother-in-law in 2016, and no payment has been made on it since 2018 or 2019. The account has been charged off in the approximate amount of $24,111.00 and purchased by another lender.
$24,111
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: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a debt on a travel trailer he purchased in June of 2023 and was repossessed in October of 2025. This debt has been charged off in the approximate amount of $15,958.00. $15,958	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted on a car loan that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $10,564.00. $10,564	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $501.00. $501	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $439.00. $439	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant is indebted on credit card that he signed on for his son. This account is past due in the approximate amount of $183.00, with a total balance of $604.00. $183	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $1,410.00, with a total balance of $29,372.00. $1,410	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $625.00, with a total balance of $12,730.00. $625	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $548.00, with a total balance of $7,729.00. $548	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant was indebted on a vehicle he co-signed for his mother-in-law in 2016, and no payment has been made on it since 2018 or 2019. The account has been charged off in the approximate amount of $24,111.00 and purchased by another lender. $24,111	Against Applicant	Auto Loan 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

y De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/28/2026 Decision NA

DECISION

EL, Jeff A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the Guideline F (Financial Considerations) security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information

STATEMENT OF CASE

is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on September 26, 2024, in connection with his employment in the defense industry. On December 31, 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

FINDINGS OF FACT

answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on January 8, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The department counsel was prepared to proceed on March 12, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on March 18, 2026.

The case was assigned to me on March 16, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 10, 2026. The Government called no witnesses and submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which I admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called no witnesses, and submitted no exhibits. DOHA received the electronic transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 23, 2026 Findings of Fact Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is married and has adult children. He is raising two of his grandchildren whom he has permanent guardianship of. Applicant is a high school graduate, who not so long ago earned a California Peace Officers Standards and Training Certificate through his county Sheriff Department. He has been employed with the same company for over 20 years and until recently worked as an Assembly Technician. This is Applicants first time applying for a security clearance and he has done so in order to work as a Quality Inspector. Applicant has never violated a company policy or been disciplined in any manner. (Tr. at 17-21) Applicants’ annual salary since serving as a Quality Inspector is $84,000 a year. Prior to that while working as an Assembly Technician he earned between $72,000 and $74,000 annually. Applicant received a $1,100 bonus in March. Applicant testified that his wife stands to receive approximately $50,000 inheritance from her aunt within the next month and they plan on paying off debt with it. (Tr. at 27-29) Applicant’s financial problems are not new since he has struggled at times in the past and filed a Chapter Seven Bankruptcy in 2006. However, his most recent financial problems stem by and large from the expenses he had after being informed in 2023 by his long-term landlord that he had to move since she was selling the property he had been renting for 40 months. Applican

POLICIES

testified that between unexpected moving expenses and having to pay a security deposit, he was out of pocket close to $10,000. In addition, the rent at the new place he secured was significantly higher than he had been paying. (Tr. at 22, 23, 59) The SOR alleges that Applicant has nine accounts which have been charged off or are past due in the approximate amount of $54,0000. In his Answer the Applicant admitted to all the allegations with explanations. The Applicant did not provide any documentation that could be seen as extenuating or mitigating. SOR Allegations: 1.a. Applicant has a debt on a travel trailer he purchased in June of 2023 and was repossessed in October of 2025. This debt has been charged off in the approximate amount of $15,958.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and has taken no action on it as of now, but plans on paying it when his wife receives her inheritance. (Tr. at 32-34) 2

1.b. Applicant is indebted on a car loan that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $10,564.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and has taken no action on it as of now, but plans on paying it when his wife receives her inheritance. (Tr. at 36-38) 1.c. Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $501.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and has taken no action on it as of now, but plans on paying it when his wife receives her inheritance. (Tr. at 39-41) 1.d. Applicant is indebted on a credit card that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $439.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and has taken no action on it as of now, but plans on paying it when his wife receives her inheritance. (Tr. at 40, 41) 1.e. Applicant is indebted on credit card that he signed on for his son. This account is past due in the approximate amount of $183.00, with a total balance of $604.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and has taken no action on it as of now, but plans on making a settlement offer and paying it off or down. (Tr. at 41) 1.f. Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $1,410.00, with a total balance of $29,372.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and stated he is in touch with the bank and once the inheritance comes in, he will get back on track with his payments. (Tr. at 42-44) 1.g. Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $625.00, with a total balance of $12,730.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and stated he is in touch with the bank and once the inheritance comes in, he will get

ANALYSIS

ack on track with his payments. (Tr. at 42-44) 1.h. Applicant is indebted on a vehicle loan that is past due in the approximate amount of $548.00, with a total balance of $7,729.00. Applicant admitted to this debt and stated he is in touch with the bank and once the inheritance comes in, he will get back on track with his payments. (Tr. at 42-44) 1.i. Applicant was indebted on a vehicle he co-signed for his mother-in-law in 2016, and no payment has been made on it since 2018 or 2019. The account has been charged off in the approximate amount of $24,111.00 and purchased by another lender. Applicant estimates the current worth of the vehicle at close to $3,000. Applicant admitted to this debt and testified he has always kept the bank informed of the vehicle location and wants the bank to take it, but they have not. (Tr. at 44-48) 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, 3

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 information. 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 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.” 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 Go

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

ernment 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 legally 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 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations 4

The security concern for financial considerations 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 about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. 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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant has nine delinquent debts consisting of charge offs and accounts he is past due on totaling approximately $54,000. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) are applicable. Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following are potentially applicable: (a) the 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; (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a dea

FORMAL FINDINGS

h, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 5

CONCLUSION

Applicants’ financial problems have been going on since at least 2006 and are ongoing. Even though the most recent debts can partially be attributed to his abrupt move in 2023 and the associated expenses, I am unable to conclude that they will be resolved within a reasonable period. Applicant testified that his wife should be receiving her inhe