ISCR Case No. 26-00256

___________ ___________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00256 Appearances For Government: Troy L. Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 10/02/2026 Decision HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: Guideline E (personal conduct) security concerns are refuted, and Guideline F (financial considerations) security concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On August 7, 2025, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On April 16, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960); Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive) (January 2, 1992), as amended; and Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A, the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), effective June 8, 2017. (Hearing Exhibit (HE) 1) The SOR detailed reasons why DCSA did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant and stated his case would be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination whether to grant, deny, or revoke his security clearance.

Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under Guidelines F and E. (HE 1) On April 28, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR. (HE 2) On July 9, 2026, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On July 16, 2026, the case was assigned to me. On July 23, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice scheduling the hearing for August 10, 2026. (HE 3) On August 7, 2026, the hearing was cancelled. (HE 4) On September 2, 2026, DOHA issued an amended notice, which scheduled the hearing for September 8, 2026. (HE 5) The hearing was held as rescheduled on S

eptember 8, 2026, using the Microsoft Teams video teleconference system. During the hearing, Department Counsel offered four exhibits, and Applicant did not offer any exhibits. (Tr. 11-12, 16-17; GE 1-GE 4) Applicant objected to admissibility of two credit bureau reports (CBRs), GE 3 and GE 4, because they might have errors or erroneous or dated information. (Tr. 17-18) He did not describe any specific errors in the CBRs. His objections pertain to the evidentiary weight the CBRs receive and not the exhibit’s admissibility. (Tr. 19) Applicant’s objections were overruled, and I admitted all proffered exhibits. Applicant provided 13 post-hearing documents. (Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-AE M) On September 21, 2026, DOHA received a copy of the transcript. The record closed on September 28, 2026, when the last exhibit was received. (Tr. 102, 111) Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits and transcript. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.c. He also partially admitted SOR ¶ 2.a in that he provided an incorrect answer on his SCA concerning his history of delinquent debt. He indicated he did not intend to deceive security officials. He also provided mitigating information. His admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Applicant is a 32-year-old security guard, and he has been a security guard for six years. (Tr. 6, 9) In 2013, he graduated from high school. (Tr. 6) He needs to complete two mathematics classes to receive an associate degree in general studies. (Tr. 7) He served in the Army from 2013 to 2015, and his military occupational specialty (MOS) was infantryman (11B). (Tr. 7, 9, 27-28) He received a medical discharge from the Army because of spinal issues and exercise-induced asthma. (Tr. 7-8) He did not serve overseas. (Tr. 8) He received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 8) His two daughters are nine and eleven. (Tr. 10, 20) He is current on his monthly child support payments of $392. (Tr. 10) Applicant’s Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating is 100 percent. (Tr. 7-8) His monthly disability check is $4,184. (Tr. 8) When he received his 100 percent VA disability rating, he received $14,000 in a lump sum, which he used to pay the loan for the vehicle he is using. (Tr. 75) 2

Financial Considerations Applicant’s financial problems were due to his cohabitant’s excessive spending. (Tr. 27; HE 2) He said, “So when I kicked out my ex, I was working nonstop, almost 12 hours a day most days, and my ex was spending all my money. And we were in severe debt. She had -- she went out and bought three horses.” (Tr. 31) He said she rescued horses that were going to be slaughtered, and she planned to train and then sell them. (Tr. 84) Applicant said they lost “a ton of money.” (Tr. 84) They had a joint account, and she managed their funds. (Tr. 84-87) He had some discussions with her about finances during their relationship; however, he was unable to convince her to change her financial behavior. (Tr. 84-87) He was not fully aware of their dire financial condition until about two or three years ago. (Tr. 84-85) They were together for 10 years, and they have been separated for two years. (Tr. 40) In 2020, Applicant was unemployed for four or five months. (Tr. 38) His current hourly wage is $38 to $42 an hour; however, sometimes he works less than 40 hours a week. (Tr. 30-31) He had to reduce his hours to comply with visitation requirements for his children. (Tr. 33) His weekly net pay is $1,000 to $1,300. (Tr. 34-35) He has been paying an attorney for two years to help him obtain better visitation rights for his children. (Tr. 65) The SOR alleges three delinquent debts totaling $35,375. Their status is as follows. SOR ¶ 1.a alleges, and Applicant admitted, that he is indebted to a credit union on a charged-off account for about $20,542. The debt is reflected on his February 26, 2026 CBR. (GE 3) In 2023, a credit union loaned funds to Applicant and his cohabitant to purchase a van. (Tr. 51, 54, 87) His cohabitant was the primary account holder, and Applicant was a cosigner on the loan. (Tr. 54) They are jointly and severally liable for the debt. When Applicant’s cohabitant moved out, she took the vehicle and did not make payments on it. (Tr. 51) He asked the creditor to repossess and sell the vehicle. (Tr. 51) She damaged the vehicle. (Tr. 55) The creditor repossessed the vehicle and sold it for $5,500. (Tr. 54-55) Applicant made multiple payments in 2025, and he reduced the amount of the debt from $25,490 to $20,542 in 2025. (AE L) In 2026, he made six monthly $500 payments, and he reduced the amount of the debt to about $17,000. (AE L) On September 8, 2026, the creditor wrote the debt was $17,000, and the monthly payments were $500. (AE C; AE L) On January 22, 2026, Applicant obtained a default judgment against his former cohabitant for $7,281. (AE C) His former cohabitant was not present in court when the judgment was issued. (AE C) He said he has another court date on November 5, 2026, to enforce the judgment. (AE G2) 3

SOR ¶ 1.b alleges, and Applicant admitted, that he has a collection account for about $12,324. This debt is reflected on his February 26, 2026 CBR. (GE 3 at 4-5) At his hearing, Applicant said he was renting a trailer from the creditor. (Tr. 23-24, 59) In December 2022, the trailer’s pipes froze; he complained to his landlord; and his landlord did not remedy the problem. (Tr. 23-25) Applicant stopped paying rent. (Tr. 25) When the rent was three months in arrears, the landlord filed a lawsuit seeking eviction of Applicant. (Tr. 25) Applicant met with the landlord/creditor’s attorney and offered the back rent, which was about $3,000. (Tr. 59) He also agreed to vacate the trailer, and the landlord’s attorney agreed to waive overdue rent without payment of the $3,000 f or rent. (Tr. 25-26, 61) The settlement agreement was not in writing. (Tr. 26-27, 62) The lawsuit was dismissed. (Tr. 63) He contacted the creditor, and the creditor wanted a one-time $8,000 payment to settle the debt. (Tr. 56, 64) He intends to pay his other debts first and then resolve the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b. (Tr. 64) SOR ¶ 1.c alleges, and Applicant admitted, that he is indebted to a creditor for about $2,509. (Tr. 67) He hired a company to assist him with obtaining a higher disability rating from the VA. (Tr. 67) He received the assistance, and then he stopped making payments after about two months of payments. He learned the company is not supposed to operate in certain states; however, he was unsure whether he was in a state where the creditor was barred from operating or seeking payments. (Tr. 67, 97) Applicant did not pay the creditor because there might be a fraud issue. (Tr. 68) The creditor promised to email Applicant that the debt was forgiven. (Tr. 65, 67, 97) He did not receive the email forgiving the debt. (Tr. 67-69) On September 22, 2026, the creditor forgave the debt and said his account has a zero balance. (AE H) Applicant’s student loans were forgiven because he received a 100 percent VA disability rating. (Tr. 66) He has a personal loan from his aunt, and he is paying her $1,008 monthly. (Tr. 76-77) The debt to his aunt will be paid in two years. (Tr. 76-77) He has not received financial counseling. (Tr. 83) His aunt helps him manage his finances. (Tr. 82- 83) Applicant’s CBRs show that he has resolved several previously delinquent debts. His current credit scores from two major CBRs are ion 551 and 602. (AE A) He provided information from a financial planner. (AE E) He generated a budget; however, the budget did not show his monthly remainder after deducting expenses and debt payments. (AE B) His federal student loans have zero balances. (AE F) Personal Conduct SOR ¶ 2.a alleges that Applicant falsified material facts on his August 7, 2025 SCA in response to the following questions: Section 26 – Financial Record Other than previously listed, have any of the following happened? In the past seven (7) years, you defaulted on any type of loan? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, 4

as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) [and] In the past seven (7) years, you had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) [and] In the past seven (7) years, you had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor). [and] In the past seven (7) years, you have been over 120 days delinquent on any debt not previously entered? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) [and] You are currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor) (HE 1; GE 1 at 30-31) He answered “No,” and the SOR alleges that he deliberately failed to disclose previous and current delinquent accounts. (HE 1; GE 1) Applicant’s January 15, 2026 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) summary of interview stated: The Subject was asked if he had any financial problems in the past 7 years and [he] responded that he did but was working on them. The Subject was asked why he did not put this on his [SCA] and he replied that he did not know he had to. The questions were pointed out on the form where he answered no, and it should have been yes. He stated he believes that he did not understand the questions when filling out the investigative questionnaire. He stated he has had the following [financial problems] over the years. . . . (GE 2 at 26-27) Applicant disclosed and discussed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a during his OPM interview, and he related that he had other debts in collections. (GE 2 at 27) The interviewer and Applicant discussed his other financial issues in the January 15, 2026 interview and in a subsequent OPM interview. (GE 2 at 27-29) Applicant’s November 21, 2025 CBR, which was about three months after he completed his SCA, lists seven negative accounts, including the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. (GE 4 at 2-4) Four of the seven debts were paid charge-offs with zero balances. (Tr. 98; GE 4 at 3-4) He knew some of the seven debts were previously delinquent over 120 days or were currently delinquent or both in the previous seven years. (Tr. 89-91) For several of the debts, he was unsure whether they were collection debts, charged-off debts, or delinquent debts. (Tr. 91-94) He was unclear about when the status of the debts changed. (Tr. 91-94) He said the correct answer to the financial question was, “Yes,” and he should have disclosed several debts listed on his November 21, 2025 CBR on his SCA. (Tr. 91-100) 5

Applicant said he hurried through the SCA without adding some information. (Tr. 42-43) For example, he failed to list his children on his SCA, and he disclosed them in his follow-up OPM interview. (Tr. 47-48) He said, “I was thinking the sooner I got it through, the sooner I can continue to continue this job.” (Tr. 100) At the time he was completing his SCA, he was thinking that he had paid several delinquent debts, and his finances were improving. (Tr. 47) He could not remember why he did not detail his debts in response to the financial question on his SCA. (Tr. 47) He said he unintentionally or “accidentally” omitted information from his SCA. (Tr. 49) He did not intend to deceive anyone. (Tr. 99) He promised to be careful and thorough when completing future SCAs. (Tr. 50) Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no 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 applicant 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, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. 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, these guidelines are applied 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, 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 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 “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in an unfavorable decision should be construed to suggest that it is based on any express or implied determination about an applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. An unfavorable decision is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President, Secretary of Defense, and Director of National Intelligence have established for issuing a clearance. 6

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, 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. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 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 ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his [or her] security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sept. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b). Analysis Financial Considerations AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems: 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 Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) as follows: This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and 7

other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. AG ¶ 19 includes disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts”; and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. Discussion of the disqualifying conditions is contained in the mitigation section, infra. The financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20, which may be applicable in this case, are as follows: (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 actions to resolve the issue. The Appeal Board in ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (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 8

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, Encl. 2 ¶ 2(b). In ADP Case No. 23-00547 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 23, 2024), the DOHA Appeal Board said: [A]n applicant must act responsibly given his or her circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by concomitant conduct even if it may only provide for the payment of debts one at a time. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). What constitutes responsible behavior depends on the facts of a given case and the fact that an applicant’s debts will not be paid off for a long time, in and of itself, may be of limited security concern. ISCR Case No. 09-08462 at 4. Relevant to the equation is an assessment as to whether an applicant acted responsibly given [his or] her limited resources See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-06567 at 3- 4 (App. Bd. Oct 29, 2009). “[U]ntil an applicant has a meaningful financial track record, it cannot be said as a matter of law that he has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolved debts. The phrase ‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment on debts.” ISCR Case No. 22-02226 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 27, 2023) (citing ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007)). A security clearance adjudication is not a debt-collection procedure. It is designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). Applicants are not required “to be debt-free in order to qualify for a security clearance. Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his or her circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by ‘concomitant conduct’ that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan.” ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017) (denial of security clearance remanded) (citing ISCR Case No.13-00987 at 3, n. 5 (App. Bd. Aug. 14, 2014)). There is no requirement that an applicant make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). Applicant’s SOR alleges three delinquent debts totaling $35,375. The debt in SOR ¶ 1.a for $20,542 resulted from a vehicle loan, which was primarily the responsibility of his cohabitant. She retained the vehicle after they were separated, and Applicant wanted the creditor to repossess the vehicle because she was not making payments on their loan. She damaged the vehicle, and the creditor repossessed it and sold it leaving a $24,000 debt. Applicant obtained a judgment against his former cohabitant for $7,281. However, she has not made payments on the judgment. From 2025 to present, Applicant has paid 9

about $7,000 to the creditor, and the current balance is $17,000. He has been paying $500 monthly since April of 2026, and he promised to continue making payments until the debt is resolved. Applicant has a bona fide dispute with the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.b for $12,324. The landlord/creditor rented a trailer to Applicant; the pipes froze; and the trailer was not habitable. He asked the creditor to make repairs; however, repairs were not made. The creditor sued Applicant to obtain the trailer, and he agreed to depart the trailer. He said the lawyer for the landlord/creditor waived the rent payments. However, the waiver was not written. The debt in SOR ¶ 1.b may be substantially less than $12,000 as rent under the contract may have stopped when the landlord obtained the trailer subject to expenses and possibly repairs. Applicant intends to pay this debt. The creditor offered to settle the debt for $8,000. The creditor for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c forgave the debt of $2,509. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. “It is also well established that an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts demonstrate a continuing course of conduct and can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 22-02226 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 27, 2023) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2017)). AG ¶ 20(b) does not fully apply. Applicant had a five-month period of unemployment in 2020. He was separated from his cohabitant, and he had litigation expenses over child custody. His cohabitant handled his finances for several years, and she was financially irresponsible. These circumstances do not fully mitigate his financial issues because he should have ensured she was responsibly handling his finances sooner. He did not assert good enough reasons or other circumstances partially or fully beyond his control, which caused him to have significant delinquent debt. AG ¶ 20(c) partially applies. Applicant received some financial counseling and generated a budget; however, the budget does not indicate his monthly remainder after paying his expenses and debts. He receives partial credit because there are “clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.” He has a plan to resolve the last two SOR debts, and he has taken steps to effectuate that plan. AG ¶ 20(d) applies. Applicant demonstrated a “good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” AG ¶ 20(e) does not fully apply. He described the background of the dispute with the landlord/creditor in SOR ¶ 1.c, and he may have legitimate reasons to reduce the debt. For example, if the landlord was able to rent the trailer after Applicant left, he may be entitled to a credit due to mitigation of damages. However, he did not “provide documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provide evidence of actions to resolve the issue.” Applicant made sufficient progress resolving his delinquent debts. He has several paid or current accounts listed in his CBRs. He received some financial counseling, and 10

he has made enough progress resolving his delinquent debts to show his good faith. There are clear indications that his financial problem is being resolved, and his finances are under control. Future financial problems are unlikely to occur. AG ¶ 20(d) is established, and financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern stating: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. AG ¶ 16 provides one personal conduct condition that could raise security concerns in this case: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. SOR ¶ 2.a alleges, and the record establishes, that Applicant provided false information in his August 7, 2025 SCA in his responses to the financial questions. He was aware that he had at least three debts which were delinquent over 120 days or in collections or both during the previous seven (7) years, and he did not disclose them on his SCA. “To establish a falsification, it is not enough merely to d

emonstrate that an applicant’s answers were not true. To raise security concerns under Guideline E, the answers must be deliberately false. In analyzing an applicant’s intent, a Judge must consider the applicant’s answers in light of the record as a whole.” ISCR Case No. 14- 05005 at 5 n.3 (App. Bd. Sept. 15, 2017) “Applicant’s statements about his [or her] intent and state of mind when [he or she] executed [his or her] Security Clearance Application were relevant evidence, but they [are] not binding on the Administrative Judge.” ISCR Case No. 04-09488 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2006) (citation omitted). In ADP Case No. 17- 03932 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2019), the Appeal Board recognized the importance of circumstantial evidence of intent in falsification cases: When evaluating the deliberate nature of an alleged falsification, a Judge should consider the applicant’s mens rea in light of the entirety of the record evidence. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 15-07979 at 5 (App. Bd. May 30, 2017). 11

As a practical matter, a finding regarding an applicant’s intent or state of mind may not always be based on an applicant’s statements, but rather may rely on circumstantial evidence. Id. Applicant did not have the intent to deceive the government about his finances. He hurried through the SCA and was focused on getting it completed quickly. He left out information such as his children and delinquent debts. His provision of inaccurate information was negligent, but not deliberate and intentional. SOR ¶ 2.a is refuted. Assuming arguendo that SOR ¶ 2.a is not refuted, AG ¶ 17 provides one condition that could mitigate personal conduct security concerns in this case, “(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts.” Prompt Disclosure. After Applicant completed his August 7, 2025 SCA, he had an opportunity to disclose his financial problems during his January 15, 2026 OPM follow- up interview, and he disclosed that he had a history of financial problems. In ISCR Case No. 22-02601 at 5-6 (App. Bd. Feb. 22, 2024) (reversing denial of security clearance), the Appeal Board discussed application of AG ¶ 17(a). The Appeal Board said: The words “prompt” and “good faith” are not defined in the Guidelines, and the Board has declined to establish a bright line definition of either term as they relate to Guideline E. We have, however, interpreted “prompt” to mean acting within a reasonable time. . . . Turning to the second element of the mitigating condition, the concept of “good faith” requires a showing that a person acts in a way that reflects reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation. Just as with the term “prompt,” what constitutes a “good faith” effort will depend on the particular facts of the case. Applicants have a duty to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to relevant and material questions during a security clearance investigation. Directive ¶ 6.2. It is preferable that applicants self-report any omission, falsification, or concealment of requested information through the appropriate channel sooner versus later. We are aware of no DoD rule, however, that imposes an obligation or duty on an applicant to self-disclose an SCA omission at a particular time or through a particular channel outside of the investigation and adjudication processes. Absent evidence that an applicant had such a formal duty, his or her correction of the omission at the initial security clearance interview, done prior to being confronted with the information, should be afforded significant weight in mitigation. . . . Applicant’s decision to wait what was ultimately seven weeks to report the omission during her interview was not in conflict with any known duty to self-report, was reasonable considering the circumstances, and amounts to a prompt, good- faith correction that should have been afforded mitigation under AG ¶ 17(a). 12

Id. (citation modified). AG ¶ 17(a) applies to SOR ¶ 2.a. Assuming SOR ¶ 2.a is not refuted, personal conduct security concerns related to the falsification of his SCA are mitigated. 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 the 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 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), “[t]he 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. My comments under Guidelines F and E are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is a 32-year-old security guard, and he has been a security guard for six years. In 2013, he graduated from high school. He needs to complete two mathematics classes to receive an associate degree in general studies. He served in the Army from 2013 to 2015, and his MOS was infantryman (11B). He received a medical discharge because of spinal issues and exercise-induced asthma. His VA disability rating is 100 percent. He received an honorable discharge. The evidence supporting approval of Applicant’s security clearance is detailed in the financial considerations and personal conduct sections, supra, and this evidence is more persuasive than the evidence against mitigation. Applicant’s CBRs show a history of paying his delinquent debts and financial improvement. He currently pays $500 monthly to the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.a and $1,008 to his aunt to repay a personal loan. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating: . . . the concept of meaningful track record necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. However, an applicant is 13

not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has . . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan. The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Applicant’s actions show financial responsibility and judgment. He has established his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F.2d at 1401. “[A] favorable clearance decision means that the record discloses no basis for doubt about an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.” ISCR Case No. 18-02085 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 3, 2020). I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Dorfmont, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, the AGs, and the Appeal Board’s jurisprudence to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Applicant refuted the personal conduct security concerns, and he mitigated financial considerations security concerns. Applicant is advised that the government can evaluate his finances at any time and revoke his security clearance if he fails to resolve his delinquent debts and maintain his financial responsibility. 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 through 1.c: For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant 14

_____________________ Conclusion I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security of the United States to grant or continue Applicant’s national security eligibility for access to classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Mark Harvey Administrative Judge 15