ISCR Case No. 25-00976

976 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government

Sakeena Farhath, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/30/2026 Decision GOLDSTEIN, J., Administrati

e Judge: This case involves unresolved security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On September 23, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on December 2, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. He attached nine pages of related documents to his Answer. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on April 14, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to 1

Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. The FORM consists of 13 exhibits. GE 1 throug

13 are admitted in evidence without objection. GE 2 contained Applicant’s Answer and all attachments submitted with the Answer. Applicant received the FORM on April 20, 2026, and did not respond. The case was assigned to me on June 17, 2026. Findings of Fact SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.j alleged that Applicant had ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $12,000 that remain unresolved. In his Answer to the SOR, he denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.i. He admitted SOR ¶ 1.j. His admission is incorporated into the findings of fact. Applicant is a 55-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is married to his second wife. He has two adult children and two minor children. He possesses a master’s degree in education. He served on active duty in the Army from 1988 until his honorable discharge in 1991, and in the Army National Guard from 1992 until his honorable discharge in 1996. He was unemployed from March 2020 to April 2021. From April 2021 to August 2023, he worked for a government contractor but was furloughed in August 2023 due to budget issues. He was self-employed from September 2023 through May 2024. He has worked for his current employer since June 2024. (GE 3) Applicant has three separate debts, alleged as SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, held by the same collection agency in the amounts of $1,143, $1,084, and $844. His May 6, 2025, security clearance application (SCA) identified these debts as credit cards that became late when he was furloughed. He noted on his SCA that he was attempting to negotiate payments to get the debts resolved. In his Answer, he indicated he had requested validation of each of these debts under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and that he planned to resolve or settle the accounts once verified. He provided a letter to the collection agency dated September 1, 2025, disputing the validity of these accounts. As of March 2026, all three accounts were identified as seriously past due in his credit report. They are unresolved. (Answer; GE 3, 5, 6) SOR ¶ 1.d alleged that Applicant had a $645 charged-off account owed to a bank. He indicated, “[t]his debt has been charged off and should not have been placed on my credit report.” (Answer) With his Answer, he provided a letter, dated September 1, 2025, that he wrote to the collection agency disputing the validity of this debt. His March 2026 credit report reflected that his unpaid balance was reported as a loss. This debt is unresolved. (Answer; GE 5, 6) SOR ¶ 1.e alleged that Applicant had a $490 account placed for collection. He indicated that it was “the subject of a dispute with the collector.” (Answer) He requested validation of this debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and planned to resolve or settle the account once verified. He provided a letter to the collection agency dated September 1, 2025, that disputed the validity of the debt. As of March 2026, this debt was identified as seriously past due in his credit report. It is unresolved. 2

SOR ¶ 1.f alleged that Applicant had a $478 account placed for collection.

On his SCA, he identified this debt as a credit card that became late when he was furloughed. At that time, he said he was “currently in talks with them to set up a payment plan.” (SCA at 42) However, in his Answer, he indicated that it was “the subject of a dispute with the collector.” (Answer) His October 2021 credit report reflected that it was assigned to a collection agency in July 2020. (GE 10) He requested validation of this debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and planned to resolve or settle the account once verified. With his Answer, he provided a letter, dated September 1, 2025, that he wrote to the account holder disputing the validity of this debt. However, he presented nothing further to show how that dispute was resolved. This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶¶ 1.g and 1.h alleged that Applicant had two separate charged-off accounts held by the same creditor in the amounts of $445 and $427, respectively. He indicated that they were “the subject of a dispute with the collector.” (Answer) He requested validation of these debts under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and indicated he planned to resolve or settle the accounts once verified. He provided copies of letters to the creditor, dated September 1, 2025, disputing the validity of both accounts. However, he presented nothing further to show how that dispute was resolved. This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.i alleged that Applicant had a past-due account in the amount of $437. He indicated that it was “the subject of a dispute with the collector.” (Answer) He indicated he had requested validation of this debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and planned to resolve or settle the account once verified. With his Answer, he provided a letter, dated September 1, 2025, that he wrote to the creditor disputing the validity of this debt. This debt was identified as outstanding as of September 2021 and remained delinquent as of the March 2026 credit report. (GE 5, 10) It is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.j alleged that Applicant was indebted to the Department of Education for student loans that were past due for 120 or more days in the approximate amount of $6,099, with a total balance of about $159,000. He incurred the student-loan debt between October 2009 and September 2014. He provided a letter, dated September 11, 2025, from a servicer of the federal student aid program that indicated his student loans were placed in forbearance, were considered in good standing, and were not in default. His forbearance was approved for the period January 13, 2025, through July 21, 2025. His monthly payment was set at $0 while he applied for an income-based repayment plan. Over the life of his student loans, records show that he had a payment agreement to pay small monthly amounts in the past, but “was 90 days past due 3 times.” (Answer at 9; GE 5, 11, 12, 13) Applicant’s personal financial statement shows a net remainder of $5,250 after his and his wife’s monthly expenses are paid. He is on a payment plan to resolve his delinquent child support. His child support payments are deducted directly from his paycheck. (GE 11) Policies 3

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 4

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531. 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. . . . 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 sets forth several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant has nine delinquent consumer accounts totaling approximately $6,000. The alleged consumer debts are established by his SCA and the credit reports in evidence. He incurred these debts between 2020 and 2024, and despite expressing his intent to resolve them, he has not. The evidence demonstrated that he has a history of not meeting his financial obligations for at least the past six years. Additionally, he admitted to having been delinquent on his student loans. While his student loans are in good standing now, their previously delinquent status and his current delinquent debts support a finding that he has a history of not meeting financial obligations. Moreover, he has not documented payments on any of the alleged delinquent consumer debts, despite reporting a monthly net remainder of $5,250. Thus, the Government also produced sufficient evidence to show that Applicant is unwilling to satisfy his debts. The above disqualifying conditions apply. 5

Conditions that could mitigate 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 in

ividual’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 death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by

predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly und

r 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; (d) the individual initia