ISCR Case No. 26-00280

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 26-00280 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Troy L. Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/21/2026 Decision DRISKILL, A. M., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On April 1, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F. Applicant responded to the SOR on April 16, 2026 (Answer) and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on July 21, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on July 23, 2026. He timely submitted documentation which I labeled as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through E, maintaining the markings Applicant used for AE A through D and additionally labeling the first four pages of introductory material as AE E. The case was assigned to me on September 15, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM (Items 3-6) are admitted in evidence without objection.

Findings of Fact The SOR alleges Applicant has three delinquent debts totaling $46,415. He admitted all the allegations in his Answer and provided supporting documentation and explanations. The alleged delinquent consumer debts are established by Applicant’s October 2025 credit bureau report. (Item 4) Applicant is 35 years old. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2014. He has never married and has no children. He has worked for his current sponsor since January 2022. He has also worked part-time as a bartender since July 2022 and as a ride-share driver for two companies since the beginning of 2022. This is his first security clearance investigation. (Item 3) Applicant did not report any financial concerns on his July 2025 security clearance application (SCA). (Item 3) His Answer contained admissions and additional information, discussed below. In response to post-Answer Government requests for additional information, Applicant submitted two packets of information. The first is undated but appears to be from about May 2026 (Item 5, hereinafter “the May packet”) and the second, also undated, appears to be from about June 2026 (Item 6, hereinafter “the June packet”). The May packet contains a personal financial statement. Under “Debts,” it lists payments to all three alleged debts, among other debts, and reflects a net monthly remainder of $1,539. Applicant included a “Supplemental Financial Explanation,” stating that the accounts became delinquent due to “poor financial management, lack of budgeting, excessive discretionary spending, and overreliance on credit.” (Item 5 at 5) He took full responsibility for the debts and stated that he moved back in with his family in January 2026 to reduce his expenses, allowing him to live rent-free while repaying his debts. He stated that he also “implemented a structured budget, reduced discretionary spending, and prioritized repayment of [his] delinquent obligations.” (Item 5 at 5) He also included a number of account-specific documents, discussed below. (Item 5) Applicant’s FORM Response acknowledged the Government’s concern, articulated in the FORM, that Applicant had only been repaying his debts for a short period. Applicant submitted proof of additional payments (discussed below) and argued that his entire course of conduct should be considered, including acceptance of responsibility, expense reduction, budgeting, creditor contact, repayment arrangements, voluntary disclosure, cooperation with the Government, and continued payments over time. (AE E) SOR ¶ 1.a: $20,538 charged-off account. Applicant contacted this creditor in April 2026, after receiving the SOR, and made a $685 payment, proof of which is included in his Answer. (Answer) He entered a 30-month, $685-per-month repayment plan to repay the full balance and included his May 2026 proof of payment in the May packet. (Item 5) He submitted proof of a June 2026 payment in the June packet. (Item 6) He provided proof of an August payment in his FORM Response. (AE A) 2

SOR ¶ 1.b: $15,490 collection account. Applicant’s Answer contained proof of a $250 April 2026 payment. (Answer) Applicant provided proof of a payment made toward this account in May 2026 in the May packet. (Item 5) He submitted proof of April, May, and June 2026 payments in the June packet. (Item 6) In his FORM Response, he stated he remains in the $250-per-month repayment arrangement but did not provide additional proof of payment. (AE E) SOR ¶ 1.c: $10,387 charged-off account. Applicant’s Answer contained proof of a $200 April 2026 payment. (Answer) Applicant provided proof of a $200 payment made toward this account in May 2026 i n the May packet. Although the creditor would not enter into a repayment agreement with him, he was informed that he could keep making voluntary payments toward the account, which he stated he is committed to doing. He was told the account is not accruing interest or fees. (Item 5) He submitted pr

oof of a $200 June 2026 payment in the June packet. (Item 6) He submitted p roof of a $200 July payment in his FORM Response, stating that he also made an August payment but did not yet have a receipt for that transaction. (AE B, E) Additional unalleged delinquent accounts: Account 1 and Account 2. Applicant disclosed t wo additional delinquent accounts in his Answer. Account 1 had an original balance of $19,056, and in April 2026, Applicant entered into a $95-per-month repayment agreement for a settlement amount of $9,528. (Answer) He provided proof of payments to Account 1 for April and May 2026 in the M

ay packet. Account 2 had an original balance of $15,224, and in December 2025, Applicant entered into a $98-per- month repayment agreement for a settlement amount of $3,045 a nd provided proof that he made six timely payments. (Answer; Item 5) He provided proof of June 2026 payments for both accounts in the June packet. (Item 6) He provided proof of July and August payments for both accounts in his FORM Response. (AE C, D) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 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. “[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 3

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, 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. 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]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18: 4

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 evidence in the FORM, specifically the credit bureau report and Applicant’s admissions, establishes the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; and AG ¶ 19(e): consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Applicant conceded that he incurred his debts due to his own financial irresponsibility and mismanagement. In December 2025, he set up his first repayment plan for Account 2, and the next month, he moved in with his parents to be able to live rent-free—all of which was done before receiving the SOR. He set up repayment plans or committed to a repayment schedule for his remaining delinquent debts in April 2026 and has made several months of payments toward those debts. His budget, which includes the monthly payments to his delinquent creditors, reflects a comfortable net monthly remainder, likely sufficient to cover unexpected expenses. Notably, he voluntarily disclosed, and has been making payments on, two delinquent accounts the Government was not aware of. Considering the totality of these actions, I find that Applicant’s prior irresponsible financial behavior is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. He initiated and has adhered to good-faith efforts to repay the overdue creditors, demonstrating a commitment to resolve those debts. Both mitigating conditions are established. 5

________________________ 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 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). 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 mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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-1.c: For Applicant Conclusion I conclude it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted. A. M. Driskill Administrative Judge 6