ISCR Case No. 23-02358

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

)

In the matter of: )

) ISCR Case No. 23-02358

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ___________________________________ ) Appearances For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/28/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on March 1, 2023. On November 13, 2023, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. Applicant answered the SOR in December 2023 and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Due to a loss of jurisdiction, the SOR was not adjudicated at that time, and an eligibility determination was not made. After jurisdiction was reestablished, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on July 28, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. He received the FORM on August 6, 2026, and he did not respond. The case was assigned to me on September 14, 2026. 1

The Government’s FORM consists of the SOR (Government Exhibit (GE) 1), the SOR transmittal letter and the SOR receipt (GE 2), Applicant’s answer to the SOR (GE 3), and the documents in support of the allegations in the SOR (GE 4-10). GE 4 through 10 are admitted into evidence, without objection. Findings of Fact The SOR alleges under Guideline F that Applicant has eight delinquent accounts totaling approximately $42,748 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-h). (GE 1) He admitted the allegations. (GE 3) Applicant is 31 years old and served honorably on active duty in the U.S. Navy from May 2016 to May 2020. He has a high school diploma and took some college courses but received no degree. He married his former spouse in January 2018; they separated in April 2021, and as of May 2023, the divorce was still pending. In April 2022 he began cohabitating with the mother of his child who was born in January 2023. He attributes his financial delinquencies and his inability to timely resolve them to lack of steady employment. (GE 6) SOR ¶ 1.a alleges that Applicant had a delinquent debt to a communication company A in the approximate amount of $283. This debt was resolved in October 2025 for less than the full balance. (GE 10) SOR ¶ 1.b alleges that Applicant had a delinquent debt to a communication company B in the approximate amount of $150. His December 2021 CBR reflects the account as delinquent and placed for collection. (GE 7) In his answer, he promised to have the debt paid off by February 2024, but he provided no evidence of resolution. (GE 3) SOR ¶ 1.c alleges that Applicant had a delinquent debt to an insurance company in the approximate amount of $158. In his answer, he promised to have the debt paid off by January 2024, but he provided no evidence of resolution. (GE 3) SOR ¶ 1.d alleges that Applicant had a delinquent debt on a medical account in the approximate amount of $4,309. (GE 6) In his answer, he stated that he was unable to pay this debt in full, but intended to begin installments in February 2024. He has provided no evidence of resolution. (GE 3). SOR ¶¶ 1.e-g allege that Applicant is delinquent on three separate accounts with the same credit union creditor, for approximately $16,233; $12,772; and $7,228, respectively. There is no evidence of resolution. His July 2026 CBR reflects the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f as delinquent with balances due as alleged. (GE 10) His March 2023 CBR reflects all three accounts as delinquent and placed for collection. (GE 8; GE 6) In his answer, he stated he was living “on disability” and his plan was to resolve these debts after he paid off his larger debts and became employed again, after April 2024. (GE 3) He has presented no evidence of resolution. 2

SOR ¶ 1.h alleges that Applicant has a delinquent debt to a credit-card company in the approximate amount of $1,615. His March 2023 CBR reflects the account as delinquent and placed for collection. (GE 8) The account is reflected as charged off in his December 2021 CBR. (GE 7; GE 6) In his answer, he stated he will start paying this debt in March 2024 and plans to have it paid off by July 2024. (GE 3) He has presented no evidence of resolution. Since the issuance of the SOR, two additional accounts have become delinquent, totaling approximately $2,800, and there is no evidence of resolution. (GE 10) Applicant did not respond to the FORM or otherwise provide current information regarding the status of the alleged debts or his income and expenses. Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 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) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. “[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 3

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, 484 U.S. at 531. “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. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 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, 484 U.S. at 531. Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The concern under this guideline 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. Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the FORM establish the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; and AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations. 4

The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 20(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 individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the p

erson’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 under the circumstances; AG ¶ 20(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; and AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Applicant bears the burdens of production and persuasion in mitigation. Applicants are not held to a standard of perfection in their debt-resolution efforts, and they are not required to be debt-free. “Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by ‘concomitant conduct,’ that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan.” ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00987 at 3 n.5 (App. Bd. Aug. 14, 2014). Mitigation is established for SOR ¶ 1.a. GE 10 reflects the debt as resolved, AG ¶ 20(d) applies. Mitigation is not established for the remaining allegations. Although there is evidence that Applicant’s financial problems may have been largely beyond his control, he presented no evidence of responsible action under the circumstances. He has not received financial counseling or presented clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control. Although he stated that he planned to resolve his debts in the near future, he presented no documentary evidence supporting resolution. Whole-Person Concept Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole- person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 5

circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Because Applicant requested a determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor. See ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Formal Findings I make the following formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.b-1.h: Against Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge 6