ISCR Case No. 26-00144

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00144 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Karen Moreno-Sayles, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/17/2026 Decision GOLDSTEIN, J., Administrative Judge: This case involves unresolved security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On February 25, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on April 15, 2026, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. He attached a one-page letter to his Answer. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on June 10, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. The FORM consists of eight exhibits (Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8), which are admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant received the FORM

on July 16, 2026, and did not respond. The case was assigned to me on September 9, 2026. Findings of Fact SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f alleged that Applicant had five unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $47,000, and a $7,866 delinquent debt that was resolved through garnishment. In his Answer, he admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.f. His admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is married and has four adult children and one teenage child. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2016. He has worked for his current employer, a government contractor, since 2008. He has held security clearance eligibility since 2008. Applicant explained that his financial problems were attributable to his wife being out of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. He contacted his creditors and asked to be given two months of deferred payments, but they denied his request. (Answer) He subsequently contacted a bankruptcy attorney, who advised him to stop making payments on all his debts. However, Applicant’s financial outlook improved after the COVID-19 pandemic, as his wife resumed working, and four of his five children were able to provide for themselves. As a result, he decided in May 2025 that he would not file bankruptcy. (GE 3, GE 4) Yet, his debts remain delinquent, with the exception of the debt that was resolved through garnishment. His debts are as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a alleges Applicant is indebted to a debt collector for an account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $35,230. This debt was for a personal loan. It became delinquent in early 2022. Applicant indicated that he planned “to focus on reconciling this debt” but presented no documentation to corroborate his claim. . (GE 3 at 29, GE 6, GE 7, GE 8) SOR ¶ 1.b alleges Applicant is indebted on a credit card account that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $4,250. This debt became delinquent in early 2022. He presented nothing further with respect to this debt. It is unresolved. (GE 7, GE 8) SOR ¶ 1.c alleges Applicant is indebted on a credit card account that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $4,173. This debt became delinquent in early 2022. He presented nothing further with respect to this debt. It is unresolved. (GE 7, GE 8) SOR ¶ 1.d alleges Applicant is indebted to a bank on an account that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $2,410. He used this credit card for daily expenses. This debt became delinquent in early 2022. He presented nothing further with respect to this debt. It is unresolved. (GE 7, GE 8)

SOR ¶ 1.e alleges Applicant is indebted to a debt collection agency for an account placed for collection by a bank in the approximate amount of $1,094. This debt became delinquent in November 2022. Applicant indicated that he planned “to focus on reconciling this debt” but presented no documentation to corroborate his claim. It is unresolved. (GE 3 at 29, GE 7, GE 8) SOR ¶ 1.f alleged that in October 2024, a default judgment in the approximate amount of $7,861 was entered against Applicant by a creditor. His wages were garnished at 25% of his disposable income per week until the judgment was fully satisfied in December 2025. This debt was resolved through garnishment. (GE 3, GE 5) Applicant noted “[h]having financial issues is embarrassing and I avoided bringing this up with anybody.” (GE 3) He also noted that “I am not or never will be a risk.” (Answer) 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.” 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.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “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. 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]eucrite 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. . . . 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 sets forth 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.

Applicant has five delinquent consumer accounts totaling approximately $47,000. He also had a judgment entered against him for $7,866. The alleged consumer debts are established by his admissions, security clearance application, and the credit reports in evidence. The above disqualifying conditions apply. Conditions that could mitigate 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 (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 action to resolve the issue. Applicant has not provided any documentation concerning his efforts to resolve his five delinquent debts. The record evidence shows that the financial concerns are ongoing and continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) does not provide mitigation. Applicant stated that his delinquent debts are largely due to his wife’s unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these are circumstances beyond his control, he has not established evidence of reasonable or responsible steps taken to resolve his delinquencies. AG ¶ 20(b) does not provide mitigation. Applicant did not indicate that he has undertaken credit counseling and, aside from meeting with a bankruptcy attorney, he has not produced evidence that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control. He presented no proof of payments on his consumer debts. While SOR ¶ 1.f is resolved, it was resolved involuntarily through garnishment of his pay. Resolution of debts through a garnishment proceeding rather

than by voluntary payment diminishes the weight to which the payments are entitled. ISCR Case No. 14-05803 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2016). AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not provide full mitigation. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply to Applicant’s debts because he did not express a reasonable basis to dispute their legitimacy. With respect to his debts that were charged off, “[A] charge off does not extinguish liability for the debt.” ISCR Case No. 16-03704 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 23, 2018). Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the 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 note that Applicant is embarrassed by his delinquent debt, but that he has done little to address it. Because Applicant requested a determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to question him or evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor. ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3- 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under the alleged financial considerations guideline. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a -1.f: Against Applicant

Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge