ISCR Case No. 24-02209

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

)

In the matter of: )

) ISCR Case No. 24-02209

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ___________________________________ ) Appearances For Government: Mark D. Lawton, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/10/2026 Decision ROSS, Wilford H., 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 26, 2024. On March 26, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. Applicant answered the SOR on April 9, 2025, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on Jume 6, 2025. 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 July 20, 2025, and he did not respond. The case was assigned to me on August 18, 2026. The Government’s FORM consists of the SOR and Applicant’s answer to the SOR (Government Exhibit (GE) 1), and the documents in support of the allegations in the SOR 1

(GE 2-7). GE 2 through 7 are admitted into evidence, without objection. On August 24, 2026, the parties were notified via email that the record in the matter had been re-opened through September 3, 2026, to allow for submission of up-to-date relevant financial documentation. The Government submitted a credit bureau report accessed on August 24, 2026, and provided a copy to Applicant, who confirmed receipt on August 31, 2026. The document, marked as GE 8, is admitted into evidence, without objection. Applicant did not submit any additional documentation. The record closed on September 4, 2026. Findings of Fact

The SOR alleges under Guideline F that Applicant is indebted to the federal government for a student loan account that was delinquent in the approximate amount of $40,000.00 (SOR ¶ 1.a). (GE 1) He admitted the allegation. (GE 2) Applicant is 33 years old, never married, and he does not have any children. He has no prior military service, and he earned a bachelor’s degree in 2016. He is sponsored for a security clearance by his current government contractor employer, where he has worked since December 2023. (GE 2) Credit bureau reports accessed in January 2024 and July 2024 reflect a single student loan account with a high credit of $27,000, which originated from a federal government funding source in August 2012, and as of May 2019 was 120 days or more past due. (GE 6; GE 7) Applicant disclosed the delinquent student loan debt in his SCA and stated that the issue arose after his college graduation in 2016. He explained that the delinquent student loan was turned over to a collection agency. (GE 2 at 35) In response to Government interrogatories, he stated that he had made no payments on the student loan and estimated he owed approximately $40,000. (GE 3 at 7) He “wasn’t making much after graduating and needed money to live. And soon after, [he] just kind of forgot about [it].” (GE 4 at 4-5) Applicant presented no evidence of any action taken to responsibly address this debt. 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 2

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, 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.

3

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. 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 4

The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. ISCR Case No. 14- 03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 15, 2015). The absence of unsatisfied debts from an applicant’s credit report does not extenuate or mitigate a history of financial difficulties or constitute evidence of financial reform or rehabilitation. ISCR Case No. 21-00261 at 2-3 (App. Bd. June 6, 2022); ISCR Case No. 19-03757 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2021); ISCR Case No. 15-02957 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2017).

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 not established. Applicant has presented no evidence for consideration towards mitigation. There is no evidence to establish that the financial problems were largely beyond his control or are unlikely to recur. He presented no evidence of responsible action under his circumstances. He has not received financial counseling or presented clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control. There is no evidence that he initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve his delinquent student loan. 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 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 5

Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of financial stability necessary to be eligible for a security clearance. The determination of an individual’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance is not a once in a lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under the current circumstances, a clearance is not warranted. In the future, he may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security worthiness. 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: 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. Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge 6