ISCR Case No. 25-01257

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 25-01257 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) Appearances For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq. Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/16/2026 Decision DRISKILL, A. M., Administrative Judge: This case involves trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. Statement of the Case On October 8, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. Applicant responded to the SOR on November 6, 2025 (Answer) and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on February 11, 2026. The case was assigned to me on April 9, 2026. On April 30, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted on June 30, 2026. On June 23, 2026, Applicant notified DOHA that he no longer wished to have a hearing. After some correspondence (Hearing Exhibit (HE) I) to establish that Applicant was knowingly electing to waive his right to a hearing and instead have the matter decided on the written record, and without objection from the Government, his request was approved and the hearing was cancelled.

The Government’s written case was submitted on July 23, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on August 6, 2026, and he did not respond. The case was re-assigned to me on September 14, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM (Items 3-5) are admitted in evidence without objection. Findings of Fact The SOR alleges Applicant failed to file Federal income tax returns for at least tax years (TY) 2021 through 2024 (SOR ¶ 1.a); he failed to file State A income tax returns for at least TY 2023 and 2024 (SOR ¶ 1.b); and he is indebted to the Federal government and State A for unpaid taxes in the approximate amount of $4,000 for at least TY 2023 (SOR ¶ 1.c). He admitted the allegations but denied the concerns expressed under Guideline F. He did not provide further explanations or supporting documentation. Applicant is 41 years old. He graduated from high school in 2003 and attended college from 2003 to 2008 without receiving a degree. He has never married but has lived with a cohabitant since 2020. He has three minor children. He has worked for his current employer since 2019. He was previously unemployed from April 2018 to April 2019 and from January 2014 to March 2015. (Items 3-5) On his August 2024 electronic questionnaires for investigations processing (e-QIP) investigation request, Applicant reported failing to file and pay Federal income tax for TY 2023 because he did not have enough money to pay the amount owed. He estimated the amount owed to be about $4,000. He stated he was saving money so he could pay the taxes. (Item 3) Applicant had a background subject interview (SI) with a government investigator in February 2025. He stated that his financial situation was improving because he was working two full-time jobs. He said that he was planning on filing his TY 2023 returns with his TY 2024 returns, which he estimated would be filed “within the month.” He explained that he had not been making enough at his one job to pay the taxes owed. (Item 5) In his September 2025 response to Government interrogatories, Applicant stated that he did not earn enough money to pay his taxes because he had three children and a disabled fiancée. He explained: “I would go to a tax site, start the process of filing my taxes and see that I owed upwards of $4,000. I couldn’t afford that.” (Item 4 at 4) He stated that he now works two full-time jobs and is in a position to address his finances. He included a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicating that they had no record of a processed tax return for TY 2024. He also submitted IRS tax account transcripts for TY 2021, 2022, and 2023, obtained in April 2025, all of which reflect no tax return filed. He stated that he tried to obtain State A tax transcripts, but they do not provide them for TYs that have outstanding balances. (Item 4) 2

Policies This case is adjudicated under 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. When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the sensitive information is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility [or eligibility for a public trust position] will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable public trust decision.” A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information. 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. The evidence in the FORM, specifically Applicant’s admissions and the IRS documentation, establish the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; and AG ¶ 19(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. 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(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 4

AG ¶ 20(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. Applicant attributes his failure to file and his tax debt to insufficient income while providing for his family. He stated that he did not file his returns because he could not pay the taxes owed. To the degree that his insufficient income was outside his control, he has not provided sufficient evidence of responsible action taken. While it is commendable that he has taken a second job to increase his income, he has not provided any evidence that he has since filed his tax returns or made payments toward his tax debt. It is reasonable to expect an Applicant to present documentation corroborating actions taken to resolve debts. Applicant’s returns are unfiled and his tax debt remains delinquent; therefore, the financial concerns are recent and ongoing. He has not established that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control. He has not made arrangements to file his returns or pay the amount owed. None of the mitigating conditions apply. Whole-Person Concept Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a public trust position 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 public trust position 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. 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. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole- person analysis. 5

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant did not mitigate 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:

AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: Against Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility for a public trust position is denied. A. M. Driskill Administrative Judge 6