ISCR Case No. 25-01228

DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD Date: September 15, 2026 ) In the matter of: ) ) ) ----------- ) ISCR Case No. 25-01228 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) APPEAL BOARD DECISION

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 5, 2026, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On August 26, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha LaFaye denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Background The SOR alleges security concerns arising from Applicant’s seven delinquent accounts. On May 7, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer), admitted four of the alleged accounts, attached documentary evidence reflecting some debt resolution efforts, and elected a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On June 18, 2026, the Government prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) setting forth its arguments against Applicant’s clearance eligibility and attached the SOR, Answer, and six evidentiary exhibits. On June 22, 2026, the FORM and its attachments were sent electronically to Applicant via DoD SAFE. On appeal, Applicant requests reconsideration on the grounds that she believes the Judge did not receive or consider documentary evidence she submitted with her Answer, and she attaches that evidence again with her appeal. For the following reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we affirm the Judge’s decision. As to the due process claim of error – that Applicant submitted documentary evidence not received or considered – Applicant’s Answer, including its attachments, was included as Government Exhibit 2 to the FORM. Furthermore, the Judge discussed that evidence, noting payments, payment arrangements, and contacts with creditors. Decision at 3. The Judge determined that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied because Applicant had not established a meaningful track record of compliance with the recently initiated payment plans or that she had acted responsibly to address and resolve her delinquent accounts. Id. at 6. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the administrative record reflects that the Judge received the documentary evidence that she submitted in her Answer. We note that Applicant had an additional opportunity to submit matters for the Judge’s consideration. On June 22, 2026, when the Government sent Applicant the FORM and its attachments electronically via DoD SAFE, they provided this accompanying message: DoD has received your Statement of Reasons Response, in which you requested that a determination in your pending security clearance/public trust eligibility adjudication be made without a hearing. Accordingly, a DoD attorney has prepared the enclosed File of Relevant Material (FORM) packet containing the Government’s arguments and evidence. Please follow the instructions below to retrieve this packet. You will have 30 days from the date of receipt to submit a response or additional arguments for consideration by the administrative judge. Email Receipt from DoD SAFE to [Government] (Jun. 29, 2026, 07:46 EDT) (“Subject: [Applicant] has picked up your dropoff!”) (emphasis added). The record confirms that Applicant received the communication, opened the link, and retrieved the FORM. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. Because the record establishes that the Judge considered those materials submitted with the Answer and that Applicant submitted no materials in response to the FORM, Applicant’s due process claim of error is unsubstantiated. As to Applicant’s request for reconsideration, the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and an applicant’s disagreement with the judge’s weighing of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 04-08975, 2006 WL 2725032 at *1 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006). Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed. 2 Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge examined the relevant evidence, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-01228 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Eric H. Borgstrom Eric H. Borgstrom Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 3