ISCR Case No. 25-01310

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01310 Appearances

For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 07/02/2026 Decision Hale, Charles C., Administrative Judge: Applicant presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate the progress, if any, he has made to resolve his delinquent debt. Under these circumstances, he failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. His application for a security clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On October 10, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance eligibility. The DoD took the action 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 National Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective for any adjudication made on or after June 8, 2017. On October 22, 2025, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all nine allegations, and requesting a decision based on the administrative (written) record in lieu of a hearing. On March 24, 2026, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), setting forth the

Government’s arguments against Applicant’s security clearance

worthiness. The FORM contains six attachments, identified as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6. Applicant received a copy of the FORM on April 9, 2026. He was given 30 days to file a Response, file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. He did not offer a Response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on July 1, 2026. GE 1, the SOR and Answer, are the pleadings in the case and already part of the record. GE 2 through 6 are admitted into evidence without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 37 years old. He served honorably in the United States Navy from 2007 through 2013. He married in 2009 and has three children. He has been taking college classes since 2018 and has taken out student loans. (GE 2; GE 4-6.) The SOR alleges Applicant has delinquent accounts totaling approximately $43,000. In his response to the SOR, he admits all the allegations, SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.i. (Answer.) He stated in his Answer he had resolved one account and w as resolving another, SOR ¶¶ 1.g and 1.h, respectively. The delinquent debts are listed in GE 4 through 6 and were discussed with a DoD investigator during his security clearance interview. (GE 3 at 2-5.) Applicant completed his security clearance application (SCA) on May 5, 2025, and he was interviewed by the investigator on J uly 30, 2025. (Answer; GE 2; GE 3.) Applicant states in his response to the SOR: Since my meeting with the investigator, I have taken significant and proactive steps to address my financial situation. I have already paid off my [SOR ¶ 1.g ($669)] debt in full, and I am in the process of addressing my [SOR ¶ 1.h ($180) debt]. I am currently awaiting the details about the debt collector to whom this account was sold, after which I will pay the debt in full. These efforts show my sincere commitment to resolving my outstanding obligations and restoring my financial standing. Additionally, I am monitoring my debt[s] in collection and have implemented a plan to eliminate any remaining debt one at a time till I'm caught up. This process has been challenging, but I am fully dedicated to following through on my plan and ensuring that these issues do not persist. My financial difficulties, while unfortunate, are not indicative of my character, and I am committed to taking full responsibility for rectifying them. In support of this, I would like to emphasize my long-standing record of dedication and professionalism with [sponsor] and previous contracts holders of this program, where I have worked for over 12 years across various companies and roles. Throughout my time with the company, I have consistently demonstrated a strong work ethic, reliability, and integrity. My 2

work history reflects my commitment to excellence, and I ask that this be taken into account when evaluating my case. I believe the steps I have taken to resolve my financial issues, along with my longstanding record of responsible and professional behavior, should be viewed as mitigating factors. I remain fully committed to both restoring my financial standing and maintaining the high standards expected in m

professional role. (Answer.) SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant admitted this $9,277 debt was for an auto loan that he opened in opened in 2021. The vehicle was in a wreck in November 2023 and went to collections while the issue was being handled by the insurance company. He told the DoD investigator he has no plans to take further action regarding this debt. (GE 3 at 2-3.) There is a note in all three credit reports that the debt was being paid through insurance. (GE 4 at 3; GE 5 at 2; GE 6 at 1-2.) This debt is being resolved. SOR ¶ 1.b. Applicant admitted he was indebted to a credit union for an individual account that had been charged off in the approximate amount of $7,687. He did not offer any details to the DoD investigator during his interview. (GE 3 at 3; GE 4 at 4.) This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.c. Applicant admitted this debt was for a personal loan he opened in 2022 for $2,500, which became delinquent in 2022. He told the DoD investigator his goal was to resolve this debt but could not offer a timeline for when he would address this issue. At the time of the SOR, the debt was approximately $3,229. (GE 3 at 3; GE 5 at 1.) This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.d. Applicant admitted this debt was for a personal loan opened in July 2022 for $2,500, which became delinquent in September 2022. He told the DoD investigator his goal was to resolve this debt but could not offer a timeline for when he would address this debt. (GE 3 at 3; GE 5 at 2.) This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f. Applicant admitted these debts, for $1,787 and $969, which are with the same creditor. He could not provide the DoD investigator with any details about these accounts, such as when they were opened or what they were for. He told the investigator he intended to resolve these debts but was unable to provide a timeline for when he would address them. (GE 3 at 3; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 5.) These debts are unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.g. Applicant admitted this debt was for a credit card opened in 2022, which became delinquent in 2022. He told the DoD investigator his goal was to resolve this debt but could not offer a timeline for when he would address this debt. In his Answer, he stated he had paid the $669 debt. The March 24, 2026 credit report does not show this d

bt, which had appeared on the May 31, 2025 credit report. Based on the assignment date of August 2024 and the last activity date of May 2025, its absence on 3

the 2026 credit report supports Applicant’s statement in his Answer that he paid this debt. (Answer; GE 3 at 3; GE 4 at 5.) This debt is resolved. SOR ¶ 1.h. Applicant admitted this $180 debt was for a credit card. He told the DoD investigator he could not recall when he opened this account and was unaware who held the debt. In his Answer, he stated he was the process of addressing this debt and was awaiting the details about the debt collector to whom this account was sold. (Answer; GE 3 at 3-4.) This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.i. Applicant admitted he was indebted to a creditor for an automobile loan that had been charged off in the approximate amount of $16,027. He listed this financial concern on his SCA. He took out the loan in about 2018 and it became delinquent in late 2019. On his SCA, he stated the vehicle was repossessed due to family hardship. He told the DoD investigator he did not know how much he owes since the vehicle was resold. He has not taken any action to resolve this debt. (GE 2 at 27; GE 3 at 3; GE 4 at 7; GE 5 at 1.) This debt is unresolved. Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that his financial issues were family related. He cited that he and his wife had to care for his sister-in-law starting in 2018. His sister-in-law suffered from a heart condition requiring special care. When his sister-in-law moved to another state in 2020, she became ill, and his wife quit her job and went to care for his sister-in-law until she died. (GE 3 at 5.) Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that in 2022, his family was experiencing racial discrimination, including an incident in which his son was attacked in their apartment courtyard by individuals armed with a pitchfork. As a result, he requested a transfer to a position in another state, which resulted in a $30,000 a year pay cut and required his wife to leave her job. As result, he was underemployed from 2022 through 2024, which caused his financial issues. (GE 3 at 5.) Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that he had been promoted to a job where he is making about what he made in the previous state in which he resided, and his wife has a new, good-paying job working for a local municipality transit authority. As a result, he told the investigator his current financial situation was stable, he was able to pay all monthly bills, and he had about $400 a month available to address his past-due debts. His 2026 credit report reflects he is current on his student loans, a car loan, and several credit cards. (Answer; GE 3 at 4-5; GE 6 at 2-6.) Applicant did not provide documentary evidence to support his statements in his security clearance interview (GE 3) or in his Answer to the SOR regarding his debt resolution efforts. Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, 4

emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to be considered 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsen

4 and the last activity date of May 2025, its absence on 3

the 2026 credit report supports Applicant’s statement in his Answer that he paid this debt. (Answer; GE 3 at 3; GE 4 at 5.) This debt is resolved. SOR ¶ 1.h. Applicant admitted this $180 debt was for a credit card. He told the DoD investigator he could not recall when he opened this account and was unaware who held the debt. In his Answer, he stated he was the process of addressing this debt and was awaiting the details about the debt collector to whom this account was sold. (Answer; GE 3 at 3-4.) This debt is unresolved. SOR ¶ 1.i. Applicant admitted he was indebted to a creditor for an automobile loan that had been charged off in the approximate amount of $16,027. He listed this financial concern on his SCA. He took out the loan in about 2018 and it became delinquent in late 2019. On his SCA, he stated the vehicle was repossessed due to family hardship. He told the DoD investigator he did not know how much he owes since the vehicle was resold. He has not taken any action to resolve this debt. (GE 2 at 27; GE 3 at 3; GE 4 at 7; GE 5 at 1.) This debt is unresolved. Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that his financial issues were family related. He cited that he and his wife had to care for his sister-in-law starting in 2018. His sister-in-law suffered from a heart condition requiring special care. When his sister-in-law moved to another state in 2020, she became ill, and his wife quit her job and went to care for his sister-in-law until she died. (GE 3 at 5.) Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that in 2022, his family was experiencing racial discrimination, including an incident in which his son was attacked in their apartment courtyard by individuals armed with a pitchfork. As a result, he requested a transfer to a position in another state, which resulted in a $30,000 a year pay cut and required his wife to leave her job. As result, he was underemployed from 2022 through 2024, which caused his financial issues. (GE 3 at 5.) Applicant told the DoD investigator in his interview that he had been promoted to a job where he is making about what he made in the previous state in which he resided, and his wife has a new, good-paying job working for a local municipality transit authority. As a result, he told the investigator his current financial situation was stable, he was able to pay all monthly bills, and he had about $400 a month available to address his past-due debts. His 2026 credit report reflects he is current on his student loans, a car loan, and several credit cards. (Answer; GE 3 at 4-5; GE 6 at 2-6.) Applicant did not provide documentary evidence to support his statements in his security clearance interview (GE 3) or in his Answer to the SOR regarding his debt resolution efforts. Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, 4

emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to be considered 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsen

tatements in his security clearance interview (GE 3) or in his Answer to the SOR regarding his debt resolution efforts. Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, 4

emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to be considered 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsen

e decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 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 ¶ 1(d) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, an

based on the evidence contained in the record. 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 applicant o