ISCR Case No. 26-00262

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00262 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/04/2026 Decision GOLDSTEIN, J., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On June 26, 2025, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). On April 1, 2026, the Department of Defense (DOD) 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 (Febr

uary 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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective within the DOD after June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on May 19, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on June 17, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 14, 2026, and the hearing convened as scheduled on August 13, 2026. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 were admitted into evidence. Applicant testified. The record was left open until August 24, 2026, for either party to submit additional evidence but nothing further was submitted. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 24, 2026. 1

Findings of Fact SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b alleged Applicant failed to file his federal and state income tax returns as required for tax years 2018 and 2019. In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted both allegations. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for his employer since late 2024. Prior to being hired by the defense contractor, he

was unemployed for most of that year. He is a tradesman and completed an apprenticeship in 2013. He has not served in the military. He is married and has two children, ages 13 and 3. (Tr. 34) Applicant explained that he never filed a federal or state income tax return for tax year 2018 or 2019. In 2019, he was “not in a good place mentally.” (Tr. 32) He was also hospitalized in April 2020 with pneumonia. (Tr. 32-33) His IRS tax transcripts for tax years 2018 and 2019 reflect that the requested data was not found. (GE 4) After he and his wife married in 2021, they hired an accountant to prepare their 2021 joint income tax return. They learned that he owed money for previous tax years, and he claims it was paid at that time. In 2021, he and his accountant contemplated filing late returns for 2018 and 2019, but he was missing W-2s for a company that had since gone out of business. His accountant used his hourly wage rate to calculate the amount he owed, and he claims he paid that amount. He has continued to use the same accountant and returns for tax years 2021 through 2024 were filed on time. (Tr. 18-29) IRS transcripts for 2021 through 2024 support his claims. Similarly, he presented state- certified copies of his s

tate tax returns from 2020 to 2024. He claimed that his federal and state tax returns for 2025 were also filed in a timely manner. (GE 4) In 2022, he was laid off by his employer and used his 401(k) savings totaling $14,000 for living expenses. He had taxes taken out of the distribution. (Tr. 29-30) Policies “[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 2

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 P

resident and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, c

onditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify th