ISCR Case No. 25-01073

VICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Se

urity Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01073 Appearances For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 07/28/2026 Decision HYAMS,

Ross D., Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On July 24, 2024, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). On December 19, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant answered the SOR on December 29, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 6, 2026. The hearing was convened on May 28, 2026. Department Counsel submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1-4, which were admitted in evidence without objection. Applic

nt did not provide any documentation for consideration. After the hearing concluded, I held the record open for a week to allow Applicant to submit documentation, and he submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A-E, which were admitted without objection.

Findings of Fact Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations, SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c with explanation. Based on my review of the pleadings, evidence submitted, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 41 years old. He was married in 2011, and was separated in 2017, but has not finalized the divorce. He stated he signed the divorce paperwork in 2018 but claimed he has been unable to get his wife to sign it. He has been unemployed since mid- 2023 but is sponsored for a security clearance by a government contractor to be an intelligence analyst. His last position was as an intelligence consultant from 2021-2023. He served in the Army on active duty from 2013-2017, as an intelligence an

alyst, and received an honorable discharge. During this service, he had one deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. (Tr. 14-18, 48-50; GE 1) Applicant uses his VA disability payment, about $4,200 monthly, as his only source of income. He reported he received about three months of unemployment in 2023. He has had no other source of income since 2023. He reported he survives by lowering his living standards and on occasion gets some support, a few hundred dollars, from family members. He stated he owns his home, which was inherited from his grandparents. He also owns a lake home, which he uses as a vacation property. He purchased this home in 2018, and it has a $1,600 Monthly mortgage. (Tr. 19-48) Applicant originally obtained a security clearance in 2013. He reapplied for a clearance in about 2019, but stated the investigation was stopped because of a loss of jurisdiction in 2021. He testified he has not worked since 2023 because he is waiting for his security clearance so he can work as an intelligence analyst. He reported he ran for sheriff in 2024 in his hometown, but he has had no income, nor has he attempted to work in other fields of employment. Post hearing, he submitted a screen shot from the LinkedIn and Indeed websites, showing that he has applied for 61 and 109 jobs respectively. However, the screenshots do not provide much information or indicate he tried to apply for positions outside the intelligence field. (Tr. 19-48; AE A, B, E) Under Guideline F, the allegations are as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a alleges Applicant has a credit card account that has been charged off for $13,349. He testified he did not know when the account was opened, and speculated it went delinquent in 2023. He claimed in late 2024 he made a payment arrangement of about $100-$150 monthly, which is auto drafted from his account, and the balance is down to about $12,000. Post hearing, he provided a letter from the creditor showing that the payment arrangement has been in effect since May 2025 and he has paid $100 monthly, for a total of $1,792. The balance is now $12,149. (Tr. 23-48) SOR ¶ 1.b alleges Applicant has an account that has been charged off for $9,916. He testified that he did not know the origin of this debt. He claimed he reached out to get information on this debt in mid-2025. After it was sold to a collection agency, he claimed 2

he contacted them and provided his contact information, but they never contacted him. He has not attempted further contact with the orig

nal creditor or collection agency. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 23-48) SOR ¶ 1.c alleges Applicant has a has an account that has been charged off for $9,916. This is a different account number than ¶ 1.b, but it appears to be the same creditor. He testified that he did not know the origin of this debt. He claimed he reached out to get information on this debt in mid-2025. After it was sold to a collection agency, he claimed he contacted them and provided his contact information, but they never contacted him. He has not attempted further contact with the original creditor or collection agency. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 23-48) Applicant did not report any financial delinquencies on his July 2024 SCA. In his February 2025 background interview with a government investigator, he was confronted with the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a the investigator reported he “disagreed. He has no such account[s].” When confronted with the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c, the investigator reported he “disagreed. He does not have an account with this creditor” and stated he would check on it within a week. (GE 1, 2) In his December 2025 SOR Answer, Applicant admitted the three allegations and stated that the three SOR debts were credit accounts that were used jointly when he was married. He wrote that they were jointly used for household and marital expenses. He wrote “following my divorce… I was left solely responsible for these obligations. Despite the legal dissolution of the marriage, the financial impact remained with me alone, including the negative credit reporting that resulted from circumstances beyond my sole control…” He wrote that not having his clearance has prevented him from working and ultimately resolving these debts. He concluded his Answer by stating that he requests his “financial history be considered in full context, including the circumstances of my divorce, the shared nature of the debts, and my demonstrated commitment to responsibility and transparency..

” (Answer) Applicant’s August 2024 consolidated credit report and his July 2025 Equifax credit report show all three charged off accounts, with unique account numbers, and both reports state that these were individual accounts (in Applicant’s name), not joint accounts. (GE 3, 4) Applicant claimed he had some financial counseling in the military, and has a friend who is a financial counselor, who gives him casual advice. He stated he has a budget and submitted a copy. It shows he has a $540 monthly remainder after his expenses. It also shows monthly he saves $200, spends $300 on entertainment, and $200 on miscellaneous. These numbers show he really has about $1,240 monthly in discretionary income. He claimed this is the first time he has had financial difficulty. Applicant testified he timely filed his 2021 and 2022 federal income tax returns but received notification from the IRS in 2025 that he needed to refile these returns. He reported he has not resolved this matter. He did not seem to understand the issue and 3

was asked to provide the letter from the IRS but he did not submit it. These tax issues are not being considered for purposes of disqualification but will be considered in the application of the mitigation conditions. (Tr. 23-50; AE C) 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 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 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 i

formation. 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 4

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 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. This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. An individual who is f

nancially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) history of not meeting financial obligations. Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The followin

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 indiv