ISCR Case No. 25-00603

____ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of:

) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00603 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) Appearances For Government: Brian Farrell, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/29/2026 Decision ROSS, Wilford H., Administrati

e Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). He did mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On July 2, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines F, J, and E. The action was taken 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) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) on August 8, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The attachments to his Answer were

later admitted into evidence as Applicant Exhibits A, B, C, and D. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on December 2, 2025. The case was assigned to me on December 18, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued an initial Notice of Hearing on Janu

ry 14, 2026. A subsequent Notice of Hearing was issued on January 20, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 2, 2026. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 15, which were admitted into evidence without objection. At my request Department Counsel submitted an updated credit report, dated April 2, 2026. (Transcript (Tr.) 101-103.) It is admitted into evidence without objection as Government Exhibit 16. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through G, which were admitted into evidence without objection. He asked that the record remain open until April 24, 2026, for the receipt of additional documentation. He submitted Applicant Exhibits H (automobile title regarding SOR 1.h), I (letter of recommendation), and J (dispute for SOR 1.j, proof of payment of fine for SOR 2.a) in a timely fashion, and they are admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on April 13, 2026. The record closed on April 24, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is 49 years old, married, and has two children. He is a high school graduate with two years of community college. He works overseas as a pest control specialist for a defense contractor. He requires national security eligibility for his work. He served on active duty in the Navy from December 1996 to December 2000 and February 2013 to March 2014. He also served in the Naval Reserve. He received an Honorable Discharge. He held a security clearance during his time in the Navy. (Government Exhibit 1 at Sections 12, 13A, 15, 17, 18, and 25; Government Exhibit 6; Tr. 61-62.) Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations) The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable, untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant denied all the allegations in this paragraph. Based on the available documentary evidence Applicant is alleged to owe approximately $16,661 in past-due or charged-off debts. The Government provided credit reports of Applicant dated September 1, 2011; March 2, 2023; July 22, 2023; March 6, 2024; April 15, 2025; and April 2, 2026, supporting the existence of the debts. (Government Exhibits 11, 9, 10, 8, 7, and 16.) The debts are also supported by his admissions to an authorized investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during an interview on November 14, 2023. (Government Exhibit 5 at 16-23.) 2

During the November 14, 2023 interview, Applicant stated that his financial difficulties began in approximately 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interview reflects, “Subject [Applicant] had a hard time keeping employment and the few employments either didn’t pay well or didn’t treat employees well.” (Government Exhibit 5 at 22.) With regard to the payment of the past-due debts set forth in the SOR, Applicant indicated that he felt a moral responsibility to repay his parents approximately $16,000. As described below, Applicant was arrested in 2022 and charged with Aggravated Assault. His parents sold stock to pay for his legal expenses. Starting in 2023 he has been paying his parents $400 a month to reimburse them. It is a matter of honor with him to repay his parents before resolving other debts. He has paid down this debt to approximately $3,700. Applicant indicated that once he has paid off his parents, he intends to resolve his other debts using his salary. However, he also admitted that he had not made any attempts to resolve the debts, even though he has known of the Government’s concerns since at least 2023. (Tr. at 27-29, 97-100, 105-106.) The current status of the debts alleged in the SOR is as follows: 1.a. Applicant denied that he owed Creditor A $3,502 for a debt placed for collection. He told the interviewer, “Subject [Applicant] does not recognize or acknowledge this debt. Subject does not know why this debt was in his name. Su

2.i. Applicant denied that he had been arrested in October 2001 in County One and charged with one count of Warrant, Bat, Spouse/Ex Sp/Date/Etc. This allegation is based solely on the FBI rap sheet. No further evidence is provided in the record. Based on Applicant’s denial and the lack of any further corroborating evidence, I find this allegation is not proved and found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 12.) 2.h. Applicant denied that he had been arrested in April 2002 i n County One and charged with Drive, Lic Suspended/Etc, and FTA after Written Promise. No further evidence is provided in the record. Based on Applicant’s denial and the lack of any corroborating evidence, I find this allegation is not proved and found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 12.) 2.g. Applicant denied that he had been arrested in June 2002 in County One and charged with one c ount of Burglary, Second Degree and on

e count of Possess Burglary Tools. This allegation is based solely on the FBI rap sheet. There is no evidence as to the disposition of this case. Based on Applicant’s denial and the lack of any further corroborating evidence, I find this allegation is not proved and found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 12.) 2.f. Applicant denied t hat he had been arrested in November 2002 in County One and charged with one count of Burglary, and one count of Tamper With Vehicle. This allegation is based solely on the FBI rap sheet. There is no evidence as to disp

g service regarding this debt. The credit reports in the record do not show a dispute regarding this debt. No further information is available. This debt is not resolved. (Government Exhibit 5 at 21; Government Exhibit 16; Applicant Exhibit F; Tr. 106-109.) 1.e. Applicant denied that he owed Creditor E $1,346 for a debt placed for collection. He testified that he did recognize the debt. Documentation reflects it pertains to an automobile part that was never delivered, for which he filed a dispute with the current creditor. This debt is not resolved, but is under dispute. Due to Applicant being involved in resolving the dispute, this allegation is found for him. (Government Exhibit 16; Applicant Exhibit J; Tr. 113-118.) 1.f. Applicant denied that he owed Creditor F $1,317 for a debt placed for collection. He testified that he did not recognize the debt and that is why he denied it and filed a dispute with the credit-reporting service regarding this debt. The most recent credit report in the record states, “Account information disputed by consumer.” No further information i s available. This debt is not resolved, but is under dispute. (Government Exhibit 5 at 21;

overnment Exhibit 16; Applicant Exhibit F; Tr. 118-121.) 1.g. Applicant denied that he owed Creditor G for a past-due debt of an unknown amount. The most recent credit report in the record states, “Purchased by another lender.” The new owner is named, but there is no entry from them on this credit report. The entry from Creditor G on the same credit report indicates “0” balance. The Government has failed to show that Applicant currently owes this debt. This allegation is found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 16.) 1.h. Applicant denied that he was indebted to Creditor H for an automobile loan that was charged off and then settled for a lesser amount. He submitted documentation showing that the creditor accepted a lesser amount and forgave the remaining indebtedness. The documentation consists of an IRS Form 1099, indicating that $18,308 of the automobile loan was discharged. In addition, he pr

ovided a copy of the title showing that there are no liens on the vehicle. Applicant has resolved this debt and the allegation is found for him. (Government Exhibit 16; Applicant Exhibits F and H; Tr. 98, 123-129.) 1.i. Applicant denied that he owed the federal government $510 for a debt placed for collection. He testified that he believed the government took this out of his tax return years ago. The debt appears in the March 2023 credit report. (Government Exhibit 9.) It does not appear in any of the more recent credit reports. (Government Exhibits 7, 8, 10, and 16.) No further information is available. Based on the available information, I find the government has not proved that Applicant currently owes this debt. This allegation is found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 5 at 21; Tr. 137-139.) 4

1.j. Applicant denied that Creditor B had obtained an unpaid garnishment against him in 2022. He denied any knowledge of a lawsuit or subsequent judgment. This may be the same debt as SOR 1.b, which he disputed. No further information was provided. This debt is not resolved. (Government Exhibits 14 and 16; Applicant Exhibit F; Tr. 106- 109.) Paragraph 2 (Guideline J, Criminal Conduct) The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in criminal conduct that creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. He denied all the allegations in this paragraph of the SOR. For ease of discussion, the allegations will be discussed in chronological order. This is different than the order set forth in the SOR. 2.m. Applicant denied in his Answer that he had been arrested in January 1996 in County One an

d charged with Burglary First Degree, Possession Stolen Property, and Possess/Etc Burglary Tools, due to the fact that he did not remember all the details. His FBI records show that he pleaded guilty to other charges and received a sentence of two years’ probation, and 15 days in jail. He subsequently petitioned the court for a dismissal of his conviction, which was granted. (Government Exhibit 5; Government Exhibit 12; Applicant Exhibit C; Tr. 30-33.) 2.l. Applicant denied that he received non-judicial punishment in about September 1997 for a violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Assault Consummated by a Battery; and violations of Article 134, UCMJ, for Communicating a Threat, and Drunk and Disorderly Conduct. He received 45 days extra duties and restriction. Applicant stated in response to DOHA interrogatories dated May 29, 2025, “Yes. I had started a fight after I had been drinking. This was my fault.” (Government Exhibit 6 at 2.) 2.k. Applicant denied he had been arrested for being Drunk in Public in May 1998. The report of interview (ROI) of Applicant by an authorized i nvestigator on October 28, 2011, reflects the following statement, “Regarding the 5/14/98 drunk in public charge, the Subject [ Applicant] did not recall any of the details of this offense as it was too long ago, but did not think that he was cited nor went to court.” There is no further information. (Government Exhibit 5 at 14.) 2.j. Applicant denied that he received non-judicial punishment in about November 1999 for a violation of Article 86, UCMJ, Absence Without Leave; Article 89, UCMJ, Disrespect Towards a Superior Commissioned Officer; and violation of Article 90, UCMJ, Disrespect to a Superior Commissioned Officer. He was reduced in rank, forfeited pay, 5

and received 40 days extra duties and restriction. Applicant stated in response to DOHA interrogatories dated May 29, 2025: Yes, I believe I had been late for a curfew that had been ordered. If I remember correctly, I was in the parking lot of the pier where the ship had been docked and my wife at the time was mad that I had to return [to] the ship after a long duration at sea. I had been a few minutes late. At the time I did not have any good [rapport] with my direct leadership. Regardless, it was my fault I was late. (Government Exhibit 6 at 1.)

sition of this case. Based on Applicant’s denial and the lack of any further corroborating evidence, I find this allegation is not proved and found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 12.) 2.e. Applicant denied that he had been arrested in February 2003 i n County Two and charged with one count of Bat, Spouse/Ex Sp/Date/Etc. This allegation is based solely,on the FBI rap sheet. No further evidence is provided in the record. Based on Applicant’s denial and the lack of any further corroborating evidence, I find this allegation is not proved and found for Applicant. (Government Exhibit 12.) 2.c and 2.d. Applicant denied in his Answer that he had been arrested in November 2003 in County Two and charged with three counts of Burglary, First Degree. Records 6

show that he was arrested for the charge as alleged. He was convicted in January 2004 and sentenced to one year in jail, probation, and a fine. He subsequently petitioned the court in 2016 for a dismissal of his convictions, which was granted. (Government Exhibit 5 at 5; Government Exhibit 12; Applicant Exhibits B and D; Tr. 30-33.) 2.b. A criminal complaint was issued to Applicant by County Three in September 2016 for Felon/Addict Possess/Etc Firearm. Specifically, the complaint stated that he was ineligible to possess a firearm b

cause of his felony conviction in May 2004 in County Two. (Government Exhibit 15.) Applicant denied this allegation, stating that he had legally purchased the weapon after his felony conviction had been dismissed by the court, as shown in Applicant Exhibit D. As a result of his showing that paperwork in the County Three court, the judge in this case also dismissed the complaint. This allegation is found for Applicant. (Tr. 80-96.) 2.a. In August 2022 Applicant was involved in a physical altercation w

ith two individuals who he felt were a danger to his family because of their conduct. Applicant chased and caught one of them, who happened to be a female juvenile. They had a physical altercation and Applicant admitted hi tting her. Both Applicant

and the other party called the police, who arrived and arrested Applicant. He was subsequently charged with Aggravated Assault. After a jury trial he was acquitted of the charge of Aggravated Assault but convicted of the lesser-included of

fense of Assault. The adjudged sentence included 45 days in jail and a fine of $907.50. Applicant paid the fine a fter the hearing. Applicant admitted that he overreacted to the situation involving the two individuals. (Government Exhibit 5 at 17-18; Government Exhibit 13; Applicant Exhibit J; Tr. 26-28, 34-80, 99-100.) Paragra