ISCR Case No. 25-01358

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01358 Appearances For Government: Cynthia Ruckno, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se 09/23/2026 Decision HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised 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 August 29, 2024. (GE 1) On December 18, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DCSA acted 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. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel forwarded the case to the DOHA Hearing Office on May 7, 2026. The case was assigned to me on June 2, 2026. On June 9, 2026, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the hearing on July 1, 2026, via video- teleconference. The hearing was held on that date. The Government offered eight exhibits which were admitted in evidence as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8 without objection. Applicant attached four pages of documents to her response to the SOR. I

marked and admitted the documents as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A. The record was held open until August 17, 2026, to allow Applicant to submit additional exhibits. She submitted an 11-page exhibit, which was marked and admitted without objection as AE B. The transcript (Tr.) was received on July 16, 2026. Some details in the decision were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. Findings of Fact Applicant, age 44, is an employee of a government contractor since July 2023 and is seeking renewal of her security clearance. She has held a security clearance since 2016. She has worked as a federal contractor for over 20 years. She has no military service. She has a high school diploma and some college credits. She is in the process of divorcing her spouse and has two stepchildren. (Tr. 16-20; GE 1) The SOR alleged Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years (TY) 2019-2024 (SOR ¶ 1.a: GE 2 at 10-14); she failed to file her state income tax returns for TY 2019-2024 (SOR ¶ 1.b: GE 2 at 17-36); she is indebted to the federal government for delinquent income taxes for TY 2019: $7,983; TY 2022: $13; TY 2023: $4,100; and TY 2024: $8,843. (SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.f: GE 2). The total amount of the delinquent federal tax debts is approximately $20,939. Additional SOR allegations include: Applicant is indebted to the state for delinquent state income tax debts for TY 2019: $2,274; TY 2020: $1,882; TY 2022: $1,792; TY 2023: $3,362; and TY 2024: $5,936 (SOR ¶¶ 1.g – 1.k: GE 2). The total amount of the delinquent state tax debts is approximately $13,264. In addition, several tax liens were filed against Applicant for delinquent state income taxes in March 2016 for $7,248; in May 2022 for $2,018; and in August 2022 for $4,029. (SOR ¶¶ 1.l-1.m: GE 3) The total amount of the state tax liens is approximately $13,295. The SOR also alleged Applicant had several delinquent consumer debts to include: an $882 judgment filed against Applicant in November 2025 (SOR ¶ 1.o: GE 2 at 4, 37- 39); a delinquent account that was placed for collection for unpaid rent in the amount of $29,263 (SOR ¶ 1.p: GE 2 at 3,40; GE 5 at 2; GE 6 at 2; GE 8 at 3); a $795 delinquent credit card account that was placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.q: GE 4; GE 5 at 2; GE 6 at 3; GE 8 at 3); and a $483 delinquent debt owed to an insurance company that was placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.r: GE 5 at 2; GE 8 at 2). Additional delinquent consumer debts include: a $450 delinquent credit card debt that was placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.s: GE 2 at 4; GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 3; GE 8 at 4); a $229 delinquent credit card account that was placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.t: GE 5 at 3); a $205 delinquent account that was charged off (SOR ¶ 1.u: GE 5 at 3; GE 8 at 4); a delinquent car loan that was past due in the approximate amount of $1,211, with a loan balance of $24,378 (SOR ¶ 1.z: GE 5 at 5); and a delinquent car loan that was past due in the approximate amount of $2,411, with a total loan balance of $14,578 (SOR ¶ 1.aa: 2

GE 5 at 4; GE 6 at 3; GE 7 at 4). The total approximate amount of delinquent consumer debt is $35,930. Finally, the SOR alleged that Applicant had four delinquent student loan accounts: one was past due in the amount of $642, with a total balance of $6,642; one was past due in the amount of $494, with a total balance of $5,327; one was past due in the amount of $374, with a total balance of $3,764; and one was past due in the amount of $120, with a total balance of $1,296. (SOR ¶¶ 1.v – 1.y: GE 5 at 4) Federal and State Tax Issues Applicant testified that all of her state and federal tax returns are now filed. The record was held open to allow Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation verifying this fact. For example, there was no documentation in the file verifying that her federal income tax returns were filed for TY 2020, 2021, and 2023. Most of the income tax returns that she provided were filed late. Applicant admits that her failure to timely file her federal and state tax returns was an oversight. She has held a security clearance for over 10 years and knew it was important to file taxes. She just did not file them. She intends to file her federal and state income tax returns on a timely basis in the future. (Tr. 21-25; GE 2 at 10-36; AE B at 2-6) Applicant discovered she owed a lot of taxes because she took the wrong exemption. She changed her exemption in hopes that it will reduce the amount of taxes she owes. (Tr. 26) Approximately four months before the hearing, Applicant entered into a payment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding her federal tax delinquencies for TY 2019, 2022, 2023 and 2024. She agreed to pay the IRS $333 a month on the 15th of each month. She has

made about three or four payments so far. (Tr. 25) She was given the opportunity to provide a copy of her payment history made to t he IRS after the hearing. She did not submit anything related to her history of payments or the copy of her payment plan with the IRS. The status of the federal income tax returns for TY 2019 to 2024 include: SOR ¶ 1.c: 2019 federal income tax return filed on October 6, 2025. Her adjusted gross income was $55,818 and taxable income was $43,618. She owed $7,973. After the hearing, she provided another 1040 Account Transcript, dated August 13, 2026, which indicated the balance was reduced to $7,843. (GE 2 at 10; AE B at 2-3) After the hearing, she provided a copy of a Form 1040 Account Transcript for 2020. Her TY federal income tax returns were received on August 12, 2025, and processed on October 20, 2025. Her adjusted gross income was $53,829. Her taxable income was $41,429. She received a refund of $6,949. (AE B at 4) In September 2025, Applicant requested a copy of the transcript of her federal income tax return for TY 2021. The IRS replied that they were unable to process her 3

request for a copy of TY 2021 transcript. (GE 2 at 13) She provided a statement from her accountant, dated August 6, 2025, which was a bill for preparing her state and federal income tax returns for TY 2021. No additional information was provided about her TY 2021 state and federal income tax returns. (GE 2 at 24) SOR ¶ 1.d: On August 6, 2025, Applicant’s accountant sent her the copies of her TY 2022 federal income tax return. Her adjusted gross income was $68,716 and taxable income was $57,766. She owed $13. Her accountant advised her to file the form electronically and told her how to send in the payment to the IRS. It is not clear if this tax return was filed or if the payment was sent to the IRS. (GE 2 at 26-27) SOR ¶ 1.e: Applicant’s 1040 account transcript for TY 2023 indicates her federal income tax return was received by the IRS on February 19, 2026, and filed on August 24, 2026. (It is assumed the delay between receipt and filing of Applicant’s 2023 federal income tax return was because of the IRS workload.) Applicant’s adjusted gross income was $70,938 and taxable income was $57,088. Her accountant indicated that she owed $4,100 plus a federal penalty of $161 for a total balance of $4,261. Her 1040 Account Transcript for TY 2023 showed that she owed the IRS approximately $6,288 for TY 2023. (GE 2 at 30-31; AE B at 5) SOR ¶ 1.f: Applicant’s 1040 account transcript for TY 2024 indicates her federal income tax return was received by the IRS on April 15, 2025, and filed on August 24, 2026. (Again, it appears the delay between receipt and filing of Applicant’s 2024 federal income tax return was because of the IRS workload.) Applicant’s adjusted gross income was $76,765 and taxable income was $62,165. She owed $8,843 plus a federal penalty of $111 for a total balance of $8,954. After the hearing, Applicant provided another 1040 Account Transcript, dated August 13, 2026, which indicated that she owed approximately $10,717 for TY 2024. (GE 2 at 34-35; AE B at 6) Applicant’s total approximate balance of delinquent federal income taxes is $24,861 for tax years 2019 and 2022-2024. The status of state income tax returns for TY 2019-2024 include: In her response to the SOR, Applicant indicates that she filed her state income tax returns for TY 2019-2024. She is currently working with the State Tax Lien and Enforcement Collection Agency on her delinquent state tax debts. She indicated a payment arrangement was set up for monthly payments of $212 beginning on April 2, 2026. She did not provide additional proof that this payment agreement was in effect at the hearing. In response to DOHA Interrogatories, dated August 23, 2025, Applicant provided a summary of her state tax returns for TY 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024. The state tax return for TY 2021 was not included. 4

SOR ¶ 1.g: TY 2019 State Income Tax Return: Applicant’s state taxable income was $50,368. She owed state income taxes of $2,274. Her accountant advised her to mail her state tax return and check for the taxes due to the state comptroller. (GE 2 at 18) SOR ¶ 1.h: TY 2020 State Income Tax Return: Applicant’s state taxable income was $48,329. She owed state income taxes of $1,882 with an additional penalty and interest charge of $101. Her accountant advised her to mail her state tax return and check for the taxes due to the state comptroller. (GE 2 at 22) SOR ¶ 1.i: TY 2022 State Income Tax Return: Applicant’s state taxable income was $63,116. She owed state income taxes of $1,762 and $66 for penalty and interest. Her accountant indicated that her state income tax return will be electronically filed and advised her on how to mail in her check or money order for state income taxes due. (GE 2 at 28) SOR ¶ 1.j: TY 2023 State Income Tax Return: Applicant’s state taxable income was $65,188. She owed state income taxes of $3,262 and $162 for penalties and interest. Her accountant indicated that her state income tax return will be electronically filed and advised her on how to mail in her check or money order for state income taxes due. (GE 2 at 32) SOR ¶ 1.k: TY 2024 State Income Tax Return: Applicant’s state taxable income was $70,865. She owed state income taxes of $5,936 and $354 for penalties and interest. Her accountant indicated that her state income tax return will be electronically filed and advised her on how to mail in her check or money order for state income taxes due. (GE 2 at 36) At the close of the record, the approximate total of Applicant’s delinquent state income taxes for TY 2019-2024 (with the exception of TY 2021) was approximately $15,146, not including penalties and interest. In addition, the status of the three state tax liens entered against Applicant is unknown. The liens include a $7,248 tax lien in March 2016; $2,018 tax lien in May 2022; and $4,029 tax lien in August 2022. SOR ¶¶ 1.l-1.n are unresolved. During the hearing, Applicant testified that she believes that she owes the state approximately $2,000 for delinquent state income taxes. She has not made any payments to the state yet. She claims she is attempting to balance all of her financial obligations. She believes she will need to get a part-time job so that she can make timely payments to the IRS. The state is interested in entering into a repayment agreement with Applicant. They request that she pay $2,000 up front and then they will negotiate a payment plan with smaller payments. She is having a hard time coming up with $2,000. The state tax debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g-1.k remain unresolved. (Tr. 28-30) 5

Delinquent Consumer Debts The SOR alleged nine delinquent debts, an approximate total balance of $35,930. The current status of the SOR debts are: SOR ¶ 1.o: $883 judgment filed against Applicant for a delinquent credit card account. Applicant entered into a repayment agreement with the law firm who filed the judgment against Applicant. On September 26, 2025, she agreed to pay $100 a month starting on October 25, 2025, until the debt was paid. (GE 2 at 37-39) It appears that the payment was reduced to $73.64. Applicant has been making payments. The most recent payment occurred on August 11, 2026. The next payment was due on September 11, 2026. The balance of the debt is unclear. (AE A at 1-2; AE B at 7) The most recent credit report, dated June 30, 2026, lists the debt with a balance of $441, which indicates payments are being made. (GE 8 at 3) SOR ¶ 1.q appears to be the same debt as SOR ¶ 1.o. The judgment repayment agreement refers to the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 1.q and lists the same account number as SOR ¶ 1.q. (See GE 2 at 37; GE 4) SOR ¶ 1.q is found for Applicant because it is the debt that is the basis for the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.o. In other words, it is the same debt. SOR ¶ 1.p: $29,263 delinquent debt related to past-due rent which was placed for collection. This is Applicant’s largest consumer debt. During the COVID-19 pandemic Applicant’s spouse suffered a severe illness and was unable to work. She lost her job. The loss of income affected Applicant and her spouse’s ability to pay rent on their apartment. The apartment complex told tenants to pay what they could if their income was adversely affected by the pandemic. The apartment complex intended to collect the back rent later. They eventually asked Applicant and her spouse to leave because they continued to not pay rent. Their unpaid rent totaled over $29,000. Applicant and her spouse moved to her mother-in-law’s house. Her spouse continued to be unable to work. She did not collect disability or unemployment payments. She recently started working part time after five years. In March 2025, Applicant moved out of her mother-in-law’s house. She and her spouse have been separated for several years and are in the process of filing for divorce. She contacted her former apartment complex and requested that she and her spouse each be responsible for half the delinquent rent owed. She claims she only owes about $13,000. She provided no proof of an amended agreement nor proof that she was making regular payments towards the delinquent rent debt. The debt remains outstanding. (Tr. 35-40) SOR ¶ 1.r: $483 delinquent insurance debt placed for collection. Applicant denied this debt. She testified that she had an active account with the insurance company. She was going to contact the insurance company about whether this is a valid debt. (Tr. 41) After the hearing, Applicant provided a receipt of a payment on July 30, 2026, towards her automobile insurance policy, which is with the same insurance company that was the original creditor of the debt that was placed for collection. (AE B at 11) However, she did not provide additional information about the status of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r. The 6

most recent credit report, dated June 30, 2026, lists this debt as seriously past due. (GE 8 at 2-3) This debt is not resolved. SOR ¶ 1.s: $450 delinquent credit card account. Applicant testified that she is paying $50 a month towards this account. (Tr. 43-44) The June 30, 2026, credit report lists the balance on the account as $225. Payments are being made towards this account. (GE 8 at 4) SOR ¶ 1.t: $229 delinquent credit card account placed for collection. Applicant testified that this debt was paid. After the hearing she was going to provide a statement that would show that it was paid. She did not submit any documentation after the hearing. The debt is unresolved. (Tr. 46-47) The June 2026 credit report lists a $254 debt that was paid. The account numbers do not match, however, it may be this debt. (GE 8 at 4-5) SOR ¶ 1.u: $205 delinquent debt that was charged off. Applicant indicated that she was going to pay this debt after she received her next paycheck. (Tr. 47) After the hearing, Applicant provided a receipt from the creditor acknowledging that she paid the remaining charged-off balance. This debt is resolved. (AE B at 10) SOR ¶ 1.z: A car loan that was past due in the approximate amount of $1,211 with a total balance on the loan as $24,378. Applicant started to pay $350 every pay period on this car loan. She testified the loan was current. (Tr. 52-53) The June 2026 credit report indicates the account was current with a balance of $22,426. This allegation is found for Applicant. (GE 8 at 2) SOR ¶ 1.aa: A car loan that was past due in the approximate amount of $2,411, with a total balance on the loan of $14,578. Applicant’s mother co-signed on a car loan for Applicant. Applicant was unable to make the payments and the car was repossessed. After the car was sold, Applicant testified that she owed approximately $3,566. The creditor wants to be paid the full amount. Applicant cannot afford to make the payment. The debt is unresolved. (Tr. 54-55) Delinquent Student Loan Debts The SOR alleged Applicant had four delinquent student loans owed to the Department of Education including: SOR ¶ 1.v: past due approximately $642 with a total balance of $6,462; SOR ¶ 1.w: past due approximately $494 with a total balance of $5,327; SOR ¶ 1.x: past due approximately $374 with a total balance of $3,764; and SOR ¶ 1.y: past due approximately $120 with a total balance of $1,296. Applicant testified that she no longer owes the student loans. (Tr. 47-50) The June 2026 credit report lists all the student loan accounts as seriously past due. (GE 8 at 3-4) 7

After the hearing, Applicant provided documentation from a company that is the official servicer of federal student aid. As of July 20, 2026, it listed a zero balance for all the alleged student loan accounts. (AE B at 8-9) In her response to the SOR, she provided another account summary of the four student loans, dated February 12, 2026. The total balance was zero. The status indicated that on February 8, 2026, each loan was paid by the Department of Education. (Response to SOR; AE A at 4). It appears that the loans were paid off by the government. SOR ¶¶ 1.v – 1.y are found for Applicant. In her current job, Applicant earns an annual salary of $92,000. Her net monthly income is $5,400 a month. Her lease was ending and she was preparing to move out of her apartment the day after the hearing. She was moving back home with her mother. She anticipates having an extra $1,500 each month to apply toward her debts. She has $115 in savings and a 401(k)-retirement account with a balance above $10,000. She is not aware of any additional delinquent debts. Policies “[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.” (Egan 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 AG. 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. 8

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. (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. (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. (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; AG ¶ 2(b)) Analysis Guideline F: Financial Considerations The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 19: 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, 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. This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. (ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012)). 9

AG ¶ 19 notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns. The disqualifying conditions that are relevant to Applicant’s case are: (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. AG ¶ 19(a) and ¶ 19(c) apply with regard to the delinquent consumer debts and student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o-1.aa. Applicant’s delinquent consumer accounts had a total approximate balance of $35,930. It is noted that her largest consumer account was the $29,263 past-due rent alleged in SOR ¶ 1.p. Her delinquent accounts revealed an inability to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations. AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c) and 19(f) apply to Applicant’s failure to file her federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2019 – 2024, and her delinquent federal and state income tax debts as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.n. Applicant owes a total approximate balance of $24,861 in delinquent federal income taxes for TY 2019 and 2022-2024. (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.f) and a total approximate balance of $15,146 in delinquent state income tax debt for TY 2019, 2020, and 2022-2024. (SOR ¶¶ 1.g-1.k) The total balance of the state debt is likely higher because she had three tax liens entered against her, which were not considered in the total approximate balance of the delinquent state income tax debt. AG ¶ 20 describes conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (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 under control; (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 10

(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. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply because Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing. AG ¶ 20(b) partially applies because Applicant is currently in the process of a divorce, her financial situation was complicated around 2020, when her spouse suffered a serious health condition and was unable to work for a period of five years. However, I cannot conclude Applicant acted responsibly under the circumstances, because she failed to file and pay her federal and state tax debts over a five-year period and she has neglected over $35,000 in consumer debt for several years. AG ¶ 20(c) does not apply. Applicant provided no proof that she attended a financial counseling course. There are no clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control because the majority of Applicant’s delinquent debts, to include her federal and state tax debts, are not resolved. AG ¶ 20(d) applies regarding the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o, 1.q, 1.s, 1.u and 1.z, because Applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve these delinquent debts. I cannot conclude that she made a good-faith effort to resolve the remaining consumer debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.p, 1.r, 1.t, and 1.aa. While she is on a payment plan with the IRS for her delinquent federal tax debts, she only entered into the payment agreement four months before the hearing. It is too soon to conclude that she will maintain the payments towards the payment plan. At the close of the record, she was unable to enter into a payment agreement for her delinquent state tax debts. AG ¶ 20(f) applies to SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, because Applicant provided sufficient proof that she filed her late federal and state income tax returns for TY 2019-2024. It does not apply towards Applicant’s federal and state income tax debts which are alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.n. Applicant recently entered into a payment agreement with the IRS for her delinquent federal tax debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.f. She did not provide a copy of her repayment agreement with the IRS or a copy of her payment history. It is too soon to conclude that she will make timely payments towards this agreement. AG ¶ 20(f) does not apply to the state tax debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g – 1.n. Applicant testified that she is negotiating with the state about her delinquent state tax debts. The state is requesting $2,000 before they will negotiate further. Applicant testified that she cannot afford to pay $2,000 at this time. Applicant has neglected her federal and state income tax debts over a period of several years. She did not begin to resolve these issues until after submitting her security clearance application in August 2024. AG ¶ 20(f) does not apply to Applicant’s delinquent federal and state income tax debts for tax years 2019 to 2024. The DOHA Appeal Board has held that failure to comply with tax laws suggests that an applicant has a problem with abiding by well-established government rules and systems. Voluntary compliance with rules and systems is essential for protecting classified information. (See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01726 at 5 (App. Bd. Feb. 28, 2018)). 11

A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations, such as filing tax returns and paying taxes when due, does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01382 at 4 (App. Bd. May 16, 2018)). While Applicant is making progress towards resolving her delinquent accounts to include her delinquent federal and state income tax debts, there is insufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised under Financial Considerations. Whole-Person Concept Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the adjudicative guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. 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 I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). I considered Applicant’s 20-year history as a contractor for the federal government and that circumstances beyond her control adversely affected her financial situation. However, she neglected to timely file her federal and state income tax returns over a period of more than five years. She recently entered into a payment agreement with IRS for her federal tax debts four months ago and is in the process of negotiating a payment plan regarding her delinquent state income tax debts. It is too soon to conclude that her federal and state tax debts are being resolved. While she resolved several of her consumer accounts, a significant amount of the consumer debts remain unresolved. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude that Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised under financial considerations. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With continued effort to resolve her federal and state income tax debts, her delinquent 12

consumer debts, and maintain financial responsibility, she may be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of her security clearance worthiness. Formal Findings Formal findings 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.c-1.p, 1.r, 1.t, 1.aa:

Against Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.q, 1.s, 1.u-1.z: For Applicant

Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. Erin C. Hogan Administrative Judge 13