ISCR Case No. 25-00695

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00695 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: William H. Miller, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/29/2026 Decision GARCIA, Candace L., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On July 21, 2025, 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 (Exec. Or.) 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 adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. Applicant submitted a response to the SOR on September 11, 2025 (Answer) and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 7, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice on January 14, 2026, scheduling the matter for a video teleconference hearing on February 11, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled.

At the hearing, I admitted in evidence without objection Government Exhibits (GE) 1-3. Applicant testified, called his spouse as a witness, and did not submit any documentation. At Applicant’s request, I kept the record open until March 13, 2026, to enable him to submit documentation. By that date, he submitted documentation that I marked collectively as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A and admitted in evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 24, 2026. Findings of Fact In his Answer, Applicant denied the SOR allegations. He is 43 years old. He married in September 2024, and he has 6 children, 2 of whom are adults. He graduated from high school in 2000. He attended college from August 2000 to December 2006 and earned a bachelor’s degree. He has owned his home since May 2016. (Answer; GE 1, 3; Tr. 7-8, 27-28, 77, 89-91) Applicant has worked for various defense contracting companies since approximately June 2020. He also previously worked as a full-time customer service representative for another government agency (AGA) from June 2023 to April 2025, when he resigned for personal reasons. He worked part time for Company A, a defense contracting company, from August 2018 to at least June 2020. He also worked part time for Company B, another defense contracting company, from November 2021 until September 2025. Since then, he has worked for his current company, also a defense contracting company. He was a supervisory protective officer as of the date of the hearing. He was granted eligibility for a public trust position in 2020. He has never held a security clearance. (GE 1-3; Tr. 6, 8-10, 28-31, 76) The SOR alleges Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years (TY) 2020, 2021, and 2024, as required. (SOR ¶ 1.a) It also alleges he failed to pay his federal income taxes for TY 2021, as required. (SOR ¶ 1.b) It also alleges he failed to file his state income tax returns for TY 2002, 2020, and 2021, as required. (SOR ¶ 1.c) Applicant’s failure to file and pay his relevant income tax returns are established by his disclosures in his June 2024 security clearance application (SCA), during his September 2024 background interview, and in his April 2025 and June 2025 responses to interrogatories. (GE 1-3) Applicant disclosed his failure to file his federal income tax returns for TY 2021 and 2022 on his June 2024 SCA. (GE 1; See also Tr. 35-42, 58-61) He stated: My taxes were filed by a tax preparation company. There were errors made by the preparer. The company was delayed in returning my documents. This occurred for [TY] 2022 as well. For [TY] 2023[,] my [W]-2 was lost[,] and I was unable to file before April 15th[,] 2023. I didn’t file an extension. But I plan to file all years as soon as possible. I just received my [TY] 2023 W-2 from the company last week 07/07/2024. I plan to file income tax [returns] for all missing tax years 2021 - 2023. (GE 1) 2

During his September 2024 background interview, Applicant reiterated that his failure to file his federal and state income tax returns for TY 2021 and 2022 was due to errors by his tax preparer [Mr. W]. (GE 3; See also AE A; Tr. 35-42, 58-61, 66-75) The report summarizing this interview reflects the following: [Applicant] failed to file his 2021, 2022, and 2023 federal and state [income tax returns]. For the year 2021[,] federal and [state, Mr. W] missed listing an entire W-2 on the form and the taxes were never filed. [Mr. W] is elderly and this may have contributed to the error. Both federal and state [income tax returns] for the tax year 2022 were filed for [Applicant] but they were declined and not accepted and sent back to [Applicant]. [Applicant] is not sure of the reason why although it may be [due] to [Mr. W’s] error as [Mr. W] was elderly. [Applicant] intends to look into this matter and file the tax year 2022 soon. For the 2023 tax federal and . . . state [Applicant] lost his W-2 from employer . . . and finally was able to get it replaced at the end of 2023. [Applicant] intends to file both federal and state [income tax returns] for the tax year 2023 soon. [Applicant] has no likelihood of anything like this happening again as he intends to hire a competent tax preparer and check all documents himself. (GE 3) In his April 2025 responses to interrogatories, Applicant again stated: I filed my taxes for [TY] 2020 [and] 2021 and as far as I knew[,] I was due a refund from Federal [and] State for both years. [Mr. W] must have made an error and the filings were never received by the IRS or State [A]. [Mr. W] took over 7 months returning my documents to me. After I retrieved the forms[,] I just didn’t resubmit. But I wanted to[,] I just kept putting it off honestly. [TY] 2021 has recently been filed. . . . The only thing I need to do is resubmit [my] tax filing for 2020 to the IRS and state. I have enough money currently so if I owe any balance I will pay it in full or immediately set up a payment arrangement. When I spoke to the State [A and] the IRS[,] the[y] explained they are not processing old returns until after the 15th of April and that could still take months. I have provided what I have. (GE 2) At the hearing, Applicant testified that Mr. W was “an old guy. He was 80 years old at the time. . . . I dealt with him for a while. But as he got older, things got a little worse. He actually went blind, and he’s deceased now.” (Tr. 36) He stated Mr. W’s firm (FIRM) filed his federal and state income tax returns for TY 2016 to 2021. He provided documentation showing he authorized FIRM to prepare and e-file his federal income tax returns with the IRS for TY 2020. FIRM signed the e-file authorization and invoiced him in March 2021, and he signed the au

thorization in March 2023. He stated he did not learn until around 2023 that the IRS did not accept his federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 that FIRM had electronically filed. He then tried to get his tax documentation from FIRM, but it took a while for FIRM to get them to him. (GE 2-3; Tr. 35-43, 58-61, 66- 75, 79-80) 3

Upon learning in 2023 that his returns for TY 2020 and 2021 were not accepted by the IRS, Applicant hired a tax preparation service (TPS) in 2025. He acknowledged that although it took FIRM a while to return his tax documentation to him, he did not seek the help of TPS right away and “kept putting it off honestly.” (Tr. 43) March 2025 documentation from TPS reflects TPS informed Applicant that it electronically filed his federal and state income tax return for TY 2021, his federal income tax balance due was $1,836, and he was due a state tax refund of $1,387. (GE 2-3; Tr. 41-44, 55-58, 61-63, 66-75, 79-80) April 2025 IRS tax account transcripts reflect that as of May 2025: (1) Applicant filed his tax returns for TY 2022 and 2023 in April 2025; (2) he had not yet filed his tax returns for TY 2020, 2021, and 2024, and his account balance for these tax years was reflected as zero; and (3) the IRS calculated he was due refunds of $3,500, $6,000, $77, and $3,734 for TY 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, respectively. April 2025 records from the state tax authority reflect that Applicant requested copies of his state income tax returns for a number of tax years, and the state tax authority did not have a return on file for TY 2002, 2020, and 2021. (GE 2-3; See also Tr. 66-75, 79) In his June 2025 response to interrogatories, Applicant stated he filed his federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021, stating “they were mailed at different times this year (2025).” (GE 3, page 47) He also stated he filed his state income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 in person with the state tax authority in April 2025. (GE 3; Tr. 66-75) He acknowledged that after having “received the transcripts from the state, from 2001 [until] 2019, 2002 is missing.” (GE 3, page 47) He was unsure why his state income tax return for TY 2002 had not been filed and stated he was still a college student at that time so he may have been exempt from filing. (GE 3; See also Tr. 17-19, 31-35, 66-75, 79) June 2025 IRS tax account transcripts reflect that no tax returns had been filed for TY 2020 and 2021; for TY 2020, refunds totaling $3,500 were calculated to be due to Applicant between May 2020 and February 2021, and for TY 2021, refunds totaling $4,950 were calculated to be due to him between March 2021 and December 2021; and he owed a zero balance for those tax years as of November 2022. In addition, June 2025 documentation from the IRS reflects the IRS received Applicant’s federal income tax return for TY 2021 “but we need more information to process the return accurately.” (GE 3, page 31) Also, a June 2025 IRS tax compliance report reflects the following: (1) for TY 2021, “no return is on file, but filing may be required based on reported income;” (2) for TY 2022, return was filed 704 days after the due date; (3) for TY 2023, return was filed 338 days after the due date; and (4) for TY 2024, return was timely filed by the due date (including extensions). He and his spouse filed jointly for the first time in TY 2024, and they intend to file jointly going forward. (GE 3; See also Tr. 66, 77-80) In August 2025, Applicant began working with a taxpayer advocate service (TAS) to resolve his unfiled federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021. (Answer; See also Tr. 58-63, 65, 70) TAS wrote: 4

TAS has received your case and determined that the 2020 return has not been input[ted] into the system, though you sent it to the IRS. We also found that the IRS stopped your 2021 tax return from posting, because there was concern for ID theft. To advocate on your behalf with the IRS, TAS will issue two separate referrals. One referral will be to send your 2020 tax return for expedited processing[,] and a second referral will be sent, recommending the 2021 return be allowed to post. . . . I will contact you again by September 25, 2025, to update you on your case. I expect your case to be resolved by November 28, 2025, and will provide a revised date if additional time is needed. In the meantime, please let me know if someone at the IRS contacts you about this problem or if any new issue arises. (Answer) In his Answer, Applicant stated he filed his federal income tax returns for TY 2020, 2021, and 2024 “but only 2024 is complete with a refund received.” (Answer) He stated, “2020 and 2021 are in processing. I will receive a refund for 2020, and I will owe for 2021 upon which I will set up a payment plan to address any debts.” (Answer) He denied not having paid his federal income taxes for TY 2021 “because there was no requirement to pay until it was processed.” (Answer) He stated, “When the processing is complete and I have a letter from the IRS and [can] access through my IRS account[,] I will set up a payment plan.” (Answer) He stated he originally submitted his tax documents for his state income tax returns for TY 2021 electronically, and then he resubmitted them in person to the state tax authority in 2025 “and are still processing.” (Answer; See also Tr. 66-75) He stated his state tax documentation reflects he will not owe state taxes for TY 2020 and 2021, and “I will gather more information for [TY] 2002.” (Answer; See also Tr. 66-75, 79- 80) September 2025 IRS tax account transcripts reflect Applicant has a zero balance for TY 2020 as of November 2022. It also reflects that no tax return had been filed, but the IRS calculated, in May 2020 and February 2021, that he was due refunds of $1,700 and $1,800, respectively. (Answer; Tr. 44-49, 61-63) Also with his Answer, Applicant provided undated IRS documentation that reflects he failed to file his federal income tax return for TY 2021 as of September 2022, and a penalty was consequently assessed. He owed $12,493 in federal taxes for that tax year; the IRS applied payments and credits totaling $6,463; and his outstanding balance was $9,555. He has a payment plan to resolve $9,555 in outstanding taxes and $1,153 in additional penalties and interest, for a total of $10,708, for TY 2021. The payment plan provides for automatic deductions from his bank account of $298 monthly, over the course of 36 months, and was scheduled to begin in November 2025. (Answer; Tr. 44-49, 61-63) In February 2026, TAS notified Applicant that the IRS processed his federal income tax return for TY 2021, and he owed $8,683 in federal taxes for that tax year. It stated, “TAS can see that an installment agreement has been established and that you are current on your payments.” (AE A) TAS further stated that the federal income tax return for TY 2020 was still pending posting to his account. Applicant stated he believed based on information told to him by TAS, that he would not owe any taxes for TY 2020. 5

(AE A; Tr. 65-66, 70, 79-80) TAS stated, “The IRS has moved it forward through processing, but it is being delayed for an unknown reason.” (AE A) February 2026 IRS tax account transcripts reflect Applicant filed his federal income tax return for TY 2021 in September 2025; an installment agreement was established in September 2025; he made three monthly payments of $276 from November 2025 to January 2026; and he owed a balance of $8,997 as of March 2026. (GE 3) He provided documentation reflecting he made five monthly payments of $298 from November 2025 to March 2026 to the IRS for his outstanding taxes for TY 2021. (AE A) He intends to continue to abide by his payment plan with the IRS and resolve his outstanding taxes. Also in February 2026, the state tax authority notified Applicant that his state income tax return for TY 2021 was received “and there is not a liability for that tax year.” (GE 3) In March 2026, the state tax authority notified Applicant that his state income tax return for TY 2020 was received and forwarded for processing. Should the IRS or the state tax authority determine he owes taxes for TY 2020, he intends to either pay it outright or through a payment arrangement. (GE 3; AE A; Tr. 63-75, 78-80) At his hearing, Applicant testified: As far as the -- I believe it was 2002 taxes that was part of the case, I tried out -- I don’t have any investigative powers to go back that far. I was 19 years old in college. I don’t -- there’s nothing. I’ve tried everything I could, just in my knowledge. And there’s nothing I can do about 2002 taxes. I hope that’s not a tremendous factor. But as far as 2020 and ’21, and again, 2024, as stated by counsel, 2024 has been in processing. We have received a refund. I do have proof of that, that I can submit. 2021 has been processed finally. And I do have a payment plan with the IRS that I’ve been paying since November 2025. I can provide statements and documents from the website and from my bank account showing those payments have been being processed and a copy of my payment plan. 2020, talking to Ms. [G] - - I’m sorry, Ms. [G], she says that 2020 is still in processing. She has heard from the IRS. It could’ve been the weather or whatever mitigating circumstances -- I mean, I’m sorry, extenuating circumstances that prevented them from processing it. But it is still in processing. And she states that I do not owe any money to the federal government for 2020 at all. So 2020, I will get the documentation from Ms. [G] as soon as possible to the Court. 2021, I have that documentation readily available. I can send that within 24 hours. Again, the payment plan, the proof that I’ve been paying and the proof that I will -- it’s an automatic payment coming out. And if need be, I can also prove the means that I have, means to pay it on time every month, the 10,000 dollars that I owe[,] which should be reduced by now. Yeah, that’s pretty much it as far as the taxes are concerned. The comptroller of [state], I visited the comptroller in person. It was not a pleasant situation. And they basically told me their processing is going to take a long time. I was also informed that their processing wouldn’t move forward much until the federal processing was done. I’m not sure how that 6

relates, but that’s what they told me. So[,] I’m just going to have to wait on the [ state] processing. But as all my documentation s hows, I do n ot owe and have never owed my state any money whatsoever. (Tr. 17-19) Applicant reiterated he was a college student during TY 2002. He acknowledged he worked while he was in college. He estimated he earned between $15,000 and $20,000 in 2002. He used a tax preparation company (TPC) when he worked in college to file his income tax returns. He believed he either filed his income tax return for TY 2002 using the TPC or his mother might have claimed him as a dependent on her tax returns during that tax year. He testified he had to further investigate the status of his 2002 income tax returns. (Tr. 31-35, 66-75, 79) Applicant provided his earnings and leave statements from Company B for pay dates March 27, April 10, and April 24, 2025, reflecting a bi-weekly net pay of $2,443, and from AGA for pay period February 2021 reflecting an annual salary of $51,442 and a net pay of $1,097. His April 2025 personal financial statement reflects a total net monthly income of $10,277. He testified that his annual salary was $95,000, and his wife, who works as a licensed mental health clinician, earned $80,000 annually. After payments toward his monthly expenses and debts, his net monthly remainder was $2,886. He also noted he had $16,361 in savings. He has not received any financial counseling. He does not have any other delinquent debts. He understood his legal obligation to timely file his income tax returns and pay his income taxes. (GE 2; Tr. 75-78-80) Applicant’s spouse testified that Applicant handles the financial affairs for their household. She stated he handles their finances with diligence, utilizing a budget. She is aware of their monthly payment to the IRS being deducted from their joint checking account and stated he has been patiently communicating with the IRS and state tax authority concerning his tax situation. She stated they filed their income tax return for TY 2024 jointly, as they intend to do with their future income tax returns. She attested to his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. (Tr. 83-93) Applicant provided a letter of reference from his mother. She described him as “a leader, a man of integrity and righteous character.” (AE A) She also noted that Applicant suddenly lost his grandmother in February 2022 and his brother in May 2022, and Applicant “put up thousands of dollars of his own money and did a fundraiser, [and] organized the funeral arrangements” for his deceased brother. (AE A) She further noted she recommended Applicant to the tax preparer Applicant discussed during his September 2024 background interview, who made errors on Applicant’s income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021. She stated: From my own experience with Mr. [W], he did well for a few years but later I noticed errors when he filed my taxes. I personally stop[ped] working with Mr. [W] in 2023. [Applicant] told me Mr. [W] messed up his taxes[,] and it took Mr. [W] a long time to respond to my son. He continuously pushed back appointments with [Applicant] for months and months until [Applicant] finally 7

went to his home office and demanded a copy of his tax forms so he could have things corrected. (AE A) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 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.” EO 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.” EO 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 at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington 8

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 at 531. Analysis Guideline F: Financial Considerations The security concern for financial considerations 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. . . . The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. Applicant failed to timely file his federal income tax returns for TY 2020, 2021, and 2024, as well as his state income tax returns for TY 2002, 2020, and 2021, as required. 9

He also failed to pay his federal income taxes for TY 2021. AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c), and 19(f) are established. Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following are potentially applicable: (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; (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’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; (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; (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and (g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements. A security clearance adjudication is an evaluation of an individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. It is not a debt-collection procedure. ISCR Case No. 09- 02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). The adjudicative guidelines do not require that an individual make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, pay the debts alleged in the SOR first, or establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. He or she need only establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). Applicant’s failure to timely file his relevant federal and state income tax returns raise questions about his judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. He relied on his tax preparer, Mr. W, to file his income tax returns for TY 2020, 2021, and 2024, as he had for previous tax years dating back to TY 2016. He did not learn, until 2023, that the IRS did not accept his federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021, that Mr. W’s firm had electronically filed on his behalf, due to errors in those returns made by Mr. W. He then requested Mr. W’s firm to return his tax documentation to him, but it took a while for that to happen. Despite that, he acknowledged he did not hire another tax preparation service, TPS, until around March 2025, because he kept putting it off. 10

Since hiring TPS in March 2025, Applicant has been trying to file his relevant federal and state income tax returns. He stated he filed his federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 in 2025, and TPS notified him in March 2025, that it had filed his federal and state income tax return for TY 2021, and while he owed federal taxes, he was due a state refund for that tax year. In April 2025, he filed his state income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 in person with the state tax authority. In June 2025, the IRS informed Applicant that while it had received his federal income tax return for TY 2021, it needed more information to process the return accurately. It also notified him that his federal income tax return for TY 2024 was timely filed by the due date (including extensions), and Applicant stated he received a refund for TY 2024. In August 2025, Applicant began working with yet another company, a taxpayer advocate service, TAS, to resolve his unfiled federal income tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021. TAS determined that his 2020 federal income tax return has not been inputted into the IRS system, despite him sending it to the IRS, and the IRS had stopped his 2021 federal income tax return from posting because of an identity theft concern. In February 2026, TAS notified Applicant that the IRS processed his federal income tax return for TY 2021. February 2026 IRS tax account transcripts reflect he filed his federal income tax return for TY 2021 in September 2025. He also established an installment agreement with the IRS in September 2025 to resolve his outstanding taxes of approximately $10,788 for TY 2021, consisting of monthly payments of $298 for 36 months, that began in November 2025. In accordance with that agreement, he made five monthly payments of $298 from November 2025 to March 2026, and he intends to continue to abide by his payment plan with the IRS and resolve his outstanding taxes. TAS further stated, in February 2026, that Applicant’s federal income tax return for TY 2020 was still pending posting to his account, and while the IRS had moved it forward through processing, it was being delayed for an unknown reason. Applicant believed, based on information told to him by TAS, that he would not owe any taxes for TY 2020. The IRS tax account transcripts from April, June, and September 2025, which reflect the IRS calculated, between May 2020 and February 2021, that he was due a $3,500 refund for TY 2020, and that he owed a zero balance for that tax year as of November 2022, support his belief. Also in February 2026, the state tax authority notified Applicant that his state income tax return for TY 2021 was received and he has no liability for that tax year. In March 2026, the state tax authority notified Applicant that his state income tax return for TY 2020 was received and forwarded for processing. He has not received confirmation that the IRS or the state tax authority has accepted his federal or state income tax return for TY 2020 because it is still being processed. Should the IRS or the state tax authority determine he owes taxes for TY 2020, he intends to either pay it outright or through a payment arrangement, and he has the disposable income to do so. Moreover, he and his spouse intend to continue to file their income tax returns jointly and timely going forward, as they did with their income tax return for TY 2024. 11

Concerning his state income tax return for TY 2002, Applicant was a 19-year-old college student at that time with an estimated income of between $15,000 and $20,000 in 2002. He believes he was either exempt from filing or his mother continued to claim him as a dependent on her tax return for that tax year. He intends to investigate further the status of his state income tax return for TY 2002 and resolve it. I find that that these financial issues do not continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(g) apply. 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). I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: For Applicant 12

________________________ Conclusion I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted. Candace Le’i Garcia Administrative Judge 13