ISCR Case No. 25-01483

____________ _____________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01483 Appearances For Government: Troy Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/30/2026 Decision DORSEY, Benjamin R., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant completed and certified a security clearance application on April 11, 2025 (SCA). On April 28, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Applicant provided a response to the SOR on May 14, 2026 (Answer) and requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The case was assigned to me on August 6, 2026. The hearing was convened as scheduled on September 10, 2026, over the Microsoft Teams online network. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 were admitted in evidence, without objection. Applicant testified but did not seek to have documents introduced as evidence. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 17, 2026.

Findings of Fact Applicant is a 35-year-old prospective employee of a government contractor whose employment is conditioned upon her being awarded security clearance eligibility. She was born in Country A and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2022. She has not been regularly employed since an internship ended in December 2024. She works part-time as a dental technician three Fridays per month, earning $510 per month. She is single, having married in 2009 and divorced in 2019. She has two children, ages 14 and 11. Both of her children have special needs, and she receives social security benefits of $832 per month for her youngest. She also receives $400 per month in child support from her former spouse. She earned an associate degree in 2011 and a bachelor’s degree in June 2025. She was a full-time student from 2022 until she earned her bachelor’s degree. (Tr. 25-31, 36-37, 40-43; GE 1, 5) In the SOR, the Government alleged that Applicant has 20 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $62,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.t). She admitted the SOR allegations with additional comments, except for the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, and 1.o through 1.s. Her denials were based upon not recognizing the account (SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.o), believing the accounts are duplicates (SOR ¶¶ 1.q, 1.r, and 1.s), or believing that another party listed on the account should be responsible for it (SOR ¶¶ 1.d (claimed she is only an authorized user) and 1.p (claimed she is a co-signer, who did not use the collateral)). Her admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. The credit reports reflect that the account in SOR ¶ 1.d is solely in her name and, as a co-signer, she is legally responsible for the account in SOR ¶ 1.p. She provided no documentary evidence to corroborate any claim that she is not legally responsible for the SOR accounts. The SOR allegations are established. (Tr. 47-48, 78-81; Answer, GE 1-5)

Applicant has claimed throughout the adjudication process that she suffered from financial hardships that were beyond her control. She has two children with special needs, and she had a contentious divorce. She has also had periods of unemployment and underemployment. She noted that the COVID-19 pandemic caused her financial hardship. She claimed that she understands the importance of financial responsibility and she will resolve her financial accounts when she is able. Based upon what can be gleaned by the credit reports, she became delinquent on several of the SOR accounts by mid- 2023, and she testified that the account listed in SOR ¶ 1.a (a car note in the amount of about $11,000) has been delinquent for about ten years. (Tr. 20-24, 43-46, 82-83, 90-91) Applicant provided a document with her DCSA interrogatory responses from a company (Company A) reflecting a September 2025 payment of $19 on an unspecified account with a n account number ending i n 8 965 an

d prospective monthly payments of $56 continuing thereafter. Company A is not a creditor listed in the SOR allegations and there is no SOR account identified in the credit reports with an account number ending in 8965. In the Answer, Applicant provided a document that appears to be from Company A that reflects a $32 payment in March 2025 and June 2025 on an account ending in 4540. However, this account number is not associated with any of the SOR accounts. (Tr. 47- 48; Answer; GE 5) 2

Applicant testified that she contacted a credit repair company at some point before she started college, but she could not afford to pay for their services. After her security interview, Applicant contacted a credit collection company (Company B) that she believed held most of her delinquent accounts. She claimed that when she spoke with Company B, their representative told her it held all of her delinquent accounts. She assumed this information was accurate and therefore only attempted to resolve delinquent accounts held by Company B. She provided a May 14, 2026 document from Company B reflecting that she made a prospective payment arrangement to pay monthly payments of $37 on the account in 1.h, $30 on the account in SOR ¶ 1.t, and $26 on an account not listed in the SOR or in the credit reports. She claimed that she has been making these payments as scheduled. She claimed that she has been paying Company B $120 per month through automatic withdrawals. She did not provide documentary evidence of these payments. Without providing corroborating documentation, Applicant claimed that Company B is working with her and accepting these monthly payments as a payment arrangement on all the accounts it holds. She claimed that Company B will apply the monthly payments to the other debts it holds once a debt is satisfied. (Tr. 20-24, 46-85, 88-89, 96-97; Answer; GE 2-5) There is sufficient corroborating evidence from Applicant’s documents and the credit reports that the following SOR accounts are held by Company B: SOR ¶¶ 1.a; 1.b; 1.h; 1.q; and 1.t. As referenced supra, there is documentary evidence corroborating that in May 2026, she made a payment arrangement with Company B on the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.t, and another unidentified account. There is no corroborating documentary evidence that she has made these payments. There is documentary corroborating evidence that in September 2025, she made a payment arrangement with Company A to pay monthly payments of $56 on an unspecified account, and that she was credited with making one payment of $19. There is also sufficient evidence in the form of credit reports, Applicant’s testimony, and contextual corroboration that the following accounts are duplicate accounts: SOR ¶¶ 1.l; 1.q; 1.r; and 1.s. The accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.i, 1.j, 1.k, 1.m, 1.n, 1.o, and 1.p are unresolved. The 2026 credit report reflects a last paid date of January 2026 for the account in SOR ¶ 1.k, with a current balance of $371, so that account balance has been reduced by $56. The account number listed in the credit report does not match the account number listed by Company A in its document that provides for prospective $56 monthly payments. (Tr. 20-24, 46-89; GE 2- 5) Applicant’s income consists of the aforementioned $340 per month that she earns through her part-time job, the $400 per month in child support from her ex-spouse, and the $832 monthly social security benefits she receives for her youngest child. She has not sought unemployment benefits. She lives on property owned by her father. The monthly mortgage payment on the property is $1,800, which she pays when she can afford it. Otherwise, her father covers the difference. Her parents also help her cover her bills. On the day of the hearing, she had about $20 in her bank account. She also has an account in which her child support payments are deposited that has a balance of about $78. If she begins work for her prospective employer, she will earn $23 per hour as an investigator. She applied for about three or four other jobs since November 2024, 3

including as a temporary employee. Another federal agency made her a conditional offer that she declined because she did not have security clearance eligibility. She has not made a greater effort to find other employment because she is dedicated to obtaining the job for which she is currently sponsored. She also testified that a recruiter for the job for which she has a conditional offer told her that if she took another job, she would be responsible for the cost of her clearance investigation. (Tr. 85-88; Answer; GE 2, 5) Applicant testified that she understands the importance of her prospective employment and holding security clearance eligibility. She noted that the nature of her prior jobs shows that she is trustworthy and reliable. When she attended college, she was one of ten candidates selected as a leader from a pool of 250,000 students. She also referenced an “FBI professor” with over thirty years’ experience in criminal justice who she sees as a mentor and as someone she tries to emulate. She claimed that she presented other character references to the investigator during her security interview. She testified that the small payments that she has made on her debts show that she is trustworthy, and that she is paying what she is able given her circumstances. There is no evidence that she has undergone financial counseling. (Tr. 21-37, 95-96) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 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), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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 national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 4

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified 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 classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). 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; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 5

Applicant had 20 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $62,000. She was delinquent on these accounts for several years. The above-referenced disqualifying conditions 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; (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts and (e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue. The Appeal Board in ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 11 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013) explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows: Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). Applicant provided sufficient evidence that four of the SOR accounts are duplicates of other accounts (SOR ¶¶ 1.l; 1.q; 1.r; and 1.s). I find for Applicant with respect to those SOR allegations. She provided sufficient evidence that she is resolving two other SOR accounts and one unidentified account (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.t). However, there are 14 SOR accounts that she has not resolved, including the two SOR accounts with by far the largest balances. Her significant financial delinquencies are ongoing, and she has not provided 6

sufficient evidence that she has the financial resources to change that status. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant’s financial delinquencies resulted from conditions beyond her control, such as her children’s health problems, a divorce, and unemployment and underemployment. For AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, she must also provide sufficient evidence that she acted responsibly under the circumstances. She has not met that burden. She waited until after she met with her investigator to contact Company B. Then, she assumed, without confirming, that Company B serviced all her delinquent accounts when it did not. Despite the SOR delinquencies and her need to have her family help her with other bills, she made minimal efforts to obtain gainful employment. Her limited financial resources and lack of failure to adequately investigate the holder of her accounts mean she made very little headway on resolving most of the SOR accounts. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, Applicant must provide evidence that she initiated and adhered to an effort to repay creditors or otherwise resolve debts, and that she acted in good faith. While she contacted the collection agency holding some of her SOR accounts, she did so after her security interview and appears to have done so in order to protect her security clearance eligibility. Regardless of her motivation, she provided sufficient evidence that she has resolved or is resolving only six of the twenty SOR accounts. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply. As I have referenced, supra, there is sufficient evidence that four of the accounts in the SOR are duplicates of other SOR accounts. AG ¶ 20(e) applies to those accounts, and I have resolved them in Applicant’s favor. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply to the remainder of the SOR accounts as she has not provided a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the accounts, sufficient evidence to substantiate the basis of her disputes, or evidence of actions to resolve the issues. For example, she did not provide any evidence of steps she took to investigate or dispute debts that she did not recognize, such as disputing them with the creditors. She also did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the record evidence that she is legally responsible for the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.p. Despite her claim that she was only an authorized user, credit reports reflect that the account in SOR ¶ 1.d was an individual account solely in her name. Also, she acknowledged that she was a cosigner on the account in SOR ¶ 1.p. Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, the 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. The 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 7

________________________ 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 have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Applicant has not established a track record of financial responsibility. Given the lack of progress she has made in resolving her debts, in conjunction with some of the assumptions she made that contributed to her inability to do so, I am left with doubts about her judgment and reliability. 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.k: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.m-1.p: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.q-1.s: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.t: Against Applicant Conclusion It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Benjamin R. Dorsey Administrative Judge 8