ISCR Case No. 26-00360

___________________________________ ______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS )

In the matter of: )

)

)

ISCR Case No. 26-00360

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ___________________________________) Appearances For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/16/2026 Decision LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge: Statement of Case On February 19, 2020; and June 6, 2025, Applicant submitted security clearance applications (e-QIPS). On April 21, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865 (EO), 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 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), effective within the DoD after June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on May 27, 2026, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to me on July 6, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing on July 7, 2026, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on August 19, 2026. The Government offered seven exhibits,

referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. The Applicant offered fourteen exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through N, which were admitted without objection. The record remained open until close of business on September 2, 2026, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation. Applicant submitted ten exhibits, collectively marked as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A, which was admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 31, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is 50 years old. He is divorced with four children from his marriage. He has another child with his girlfriend with whom he is cohabitating. He has a Bachelor’s degree. He holds the position of Senior Transportation Truckmaster. He is seeking to retain his security clearance in connection with his employment. Guideline F - Financial Considerations The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The SOR identified twenty-one delinquent debts consisting of credit card debt and home improvement loans totaling approximately $88,720. Applicant admitted each of the allegations set forth under this guideline. Credit reports of the Applicant dated February 26, 2020; August 28, 2024; October 31, 2025; and July 2, 2026, confirm each of the delinquent debts listed in the SOR. (Government Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7.) Applicant served for almost twenty-three years on active duty in the United States Army from 1999 to 2021. He retired at the rank of E-7, with an honorable discharge. During his military career he was deployed overseas on five separate occasions to Bosnia, Poland, and to Iraq on three occasions. He currently receives $3,300 monthly in military retirement pay. He has a disability rating of 100 percent and receives $4,097 tax free each month from the VA. He stated that since joining the military, he has always held a security clearance. Applicant was married for thirty years, from 1995 to 2026. They have four children from the marriage, ages 21, 24, 25, and 30. His wife worked as a beautician and Master Cosmetologist and earned about $30,000 annually. Prior to his current job, Applicant earned about $83,000 annually. In his current position after a promotion, he earns about $110,000 annually. (Tr. pp. 31-32.) During the marriage, there were times that he and his wife spent money they did not have and lived beyond their means. (Tr. p. 65.) In June 2023, Applicant and his wife separated. He moved out of the family house and into an apartment. Three months later, in September 2023, Applicant’s girlfriend, 2

who recently retired from the military, and who receives about the same amount of disability and retirement benefits as the Applicant, moved into Applicant’s apartment with him. She brought with her their eight-year old child they had together. Applicant believes that this is when his financial problems began. He stated that he continued to pay all of the bills for his wife during their separation, up until their divorce was final. He paid for both households during their separation, by paying the mortgage on the house his wife and family lived in, the rent for his apartment, utilities, (electricity, gas, water, and trash) both car payments, the car insurance, and other recurring financial responsibilities. He explained that he and his wife have a son who is special needs, and he realized that his wife needed his financial support to be able to care for their son, and to maintain their household. He stated that he paid these bills until the divorce was final in May 2026. In May 2025, Applicant’s girlfriend purchased a house, and Applicant moved into her house with her. He now gives his girlfriend about $1,700 monthly which is half of her mortgage payment to help with the expenses. (Tr. p. 92.) Applicant stated that the separation and divorce process lasted almost three years and created substantial financial strain. (Applicant’s Exhibit C.) He also contends that until his marital separation he had no financial difficulties and had always paid his bills on time. (Tr. p. 34.) However, Applicant’s credit reports show otherwise. Applicant’s credit report shows that in 2020, he had over $20,000 in delinquent debt that he could not afford to pay. (Tr. p. 37-38, and Government Exhibit 4.) At that time, he hired a credit counseling service to help him get it resolved. When asked about this, he stated that he does not remember this. Applicant’s divorce agreement allowed his wife to live in the family house until May of 2027. At that time, she must be able to refinance the house to take his name off of the deed, if she is going to keep the house. If not, the house will be sold. Her mortgage payment is currently $2,400 monthly. Applicant gives her $2,500 a month which covers the mortgage payment on the house. He explained that the $2,500 he gives her is $1,500 which is half of his monthly retirement benefit; and $1,000 which is her monthly alimony payment. He stated that he will continue to pay his ex-wife $2,500 monthly for the next five years. At that point, her financial situation will be reviewed to determine if it should continue or be reduced. (Tr. pp. 42-43.) In June 2026, Applicant hired a debt relief company to assist him in resolving his delinquent debts. His debt relief program requires him to pay $669 monthly for five years. At the time of the hearing, he had made the July and August payments. (Tr. pp. 44-47 and Applicant’s Exhibit N.) Applicant stated that his larger debts were all turned over to the Debt Relief Program. Their policy does not accept debts of $500 or less, so he has to address them on his own. He stated that he has juggled making payments to some of his smaller creditors, paying one small debt at a time and then another the next month, when he could afford to pay them. Applicant stated he has not purchased anything for himself in a long time. In June 2023 or 2024, he purchased a treadmill for himself and spent about $3,000. He admitted that he has lived beyond his means at times. (Tr. p. 65.) 3

The following delinquent debts listed in the SOR are of security concern: 1.a. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $38,353. This is a home improvement loan that was opened in February 2022, and last paid in July 2023. Applicant was sued by the creditor for the balance due, including penalties and interest. A judgment was entered against him in November 2025, in the amount of $41,023. Applicant recently set up a payment plan with the creditor to resolve the debt which started in July 2026. His monthly payment is $885.93. At this point, he has made just two payments, one in July and one in August 2026. (Tr. pp. 48-49, Applicant’s Exhibit H, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) This debt is not included in the Debt Relief Program. (The debt alleged in 1.c. concerns the same creditor and is included in the monthly payment of $885.93.) 1.b. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $6,254. This is a credit card he used for living expenses. Applicant was making some payment of $200 monthly to reduce the debt. The balance has decreased to $4,454. (Applicant’s Exhibit F.) The debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Government Exhibit 7, pg. 8, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Applicant’s Post- Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.c. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $5,765. This is a credit card he opened in March 2022 and last paid in July 2023. The debts alleged in allegation 1.a. and 1.c concern the same creditor. Applicant’s monthly payment of $885.93 also includes payment for this debt. (Tr. pp. 52- 53 and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) This debt is not included in the Debt Relief Program. 1.d. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $4,801. This is a credit card that he used to do his shopping on- line. He believes he could have purchased an exercise Bike, but is not sure. Applicant made some payments and has reduced the debt to $3,358. The debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 4.) 1.e. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $4,329. This is a credit card from a home improvement store. He used it to purchase home improvement items. The debt remains owing, and is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 74, and Applicant’s Exhibit N.) 1.f. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $3,839. This is a credit card used to pay regular living expenses. The debt remains owing, and is included in the Debt Relief Program. Applicant provided a copy of a list of creditors from the Debt Relief Program which shows the projected debt reduction, and it appears that this debt will be settled and paid in full on October 27, 2026. (Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 4

1.g. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $3,336. This is a credit card. Applicant stated that he has been making payments toward the debt, and has reduced it to $1,182. He believes that he has six payments remaining. (Tr. p. 76, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.h. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $2,869. This is a credit card from a home improvement store. The debt remains owing, and is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 77, and Applicant’s Exhibit N.) 1.i. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $2,732. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. The balance owed on the account is currently $2,504, and the debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 61, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7, pg.3.) 1.j. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $1,879. This is a credit card for a furniture store, used to purchase furniture. On August 27, 2026, this debt appears to have been settled in the amount of $940 by the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 77, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.k. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $1,223. This is a credit card. Applicant stated that he made five or six payments toward resolving the debt. The balance owed on the account is currently $985, and the debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 77, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7.) 1.l. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $1,020. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. The balance owed on the account is currently $935, and the debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 62, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 4.) 1.m. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $1,000. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. The balance owed on the account was $700. It was recently paid off. The debt now has a zero balance. The debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 62, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 3, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.n. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $856. This is a credit card. The balance remains owing on the account. The debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 79, and Applicant’s Exhibit N.) 1.o. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $727. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. 5

The balance on the account is currently $666, and the debt is included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 62, Applicant’s Exhibit N, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 3.) 1.p. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $703. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. Applicant has made some payments toward resolving this debt. It was recently paid off. The debt now has a zero balance. This debt was not included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 62-63, Government Exhibit 7, pg. 3, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.q. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $554. This is a credit card he used for everyday expenses. Applicant stated that he settled the account sometime ago. The debt is no longer owing. (Tr. p. 79, and Applicant’s Exhibit E.) 1.r. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $420. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. Applicant made some payments toward resolving this debt. The balance owed on the account was $210.39. It was recently paid off. The debt now has a zero balance. The debt is not included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. pp. 63-64, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 3, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) 1.s. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $154. This is a credit card that he used to do on-line shopping. Applicant has paid this debt off. (Tr. p. 64, and Government Exhibit 7, pg. 4.) The debt is no longer owing. 1.t. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $29. This is a credit union fee that Applicant has paid. The debt is no longer owing. (Tr. p. 80, and Applicant’s Exhibit B.) 1.u. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the approximate amount of $10,297 with a total balance owed of $25,700. Applicant does not know for certain what the debt was for, but he knows that the debt is his. He entered into a contract modification agreement on August 24, 2026. He believes it may have been for another home improvement loan he took out. It looks to be a bill for landscaping. The payment plan requires him to pay the creditor $332.82 monthly with final payment to be due on or before November 1, 2033. The debt is not included in the Debt Relief Program. (Tr. p. 82, and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) Applicant submitted a copy of a list of creditors with his larger debts involved in the Debt Relief Company, showing projected reductions, settlements, and pay-off dates ranging from August 2026 through May 30, 2028. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) Letters of recommendation from the SOC Manager and the Senior Logistics Manager who have both worked closely with the Applicant, attest to his exceptional work 6

ethic, analytical precision, and leadership capabilities. In their opinion, he is an honest man of integrity who is extremely trustworthy. He has distinguished himself through outstanding performance and a strong commitment to excellence on the job. He excels under pressure, remains calm, focused, and is decisive in challenging situations. He has sound judgment and finds effective solutions to complex problems, and successfully works through demanding circumstances. His unique combination of skills, experience, and dedication, is an asset to any position he is in. They recommend him for a leadership position or a role requiring significant responsibility, decision-making, and operational oversight. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 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 clearance 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. 7

Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to 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. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. Three are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (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. Applicant has a history of financial difficulties due to a separation and divorce and spending beyond his means. His actions or inactions both demonstrate a history of not addressing his debt and/or an inability to do so. The evidence is sufficient to raise the above disqualifying conditions. 8

The following mitigating conditions under the Financial Considerations guideline are potentially applicable under 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; (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, or a death, divorce, or separation), 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. During his marriage, Applicant spent more than he could afford and he lived beyond his means. During his separation and divorce things were costly. As he stated, he paid all of the costs and expenses associated with his wife’s household, as well as those expenses related to his apartment and related costs, and then he helped his girlfriend pay for half of her mortgage. He also took on all of the debt incurred during the marriage. He became excessively indebted and fell behind on many of his bills. Realizing that he could not do it all by himself, just three or four months ago, he hired a Debt Resolution Company to assist him in resolving his delinquent debts. They have been helpful and have made some progress, but not enough. Applicant remains excessively indebted. Applicant needs more time to show the Government that he can live within his means, and resolve his delinquent debts. He must demonstrate that he can remain financially responsible. At this time, however, Applicant falls short of meeting this requirement. He has not lived within his means, nor has he shown that he is financially responsible. None of the mitigating conditions taken together or separately are applicable. I have also considered Applicant’s stellar military career and the many sacrifices he has made for our country. His commitment and bravery as a member of our Armed Forces for almost twenty-three years deserves our deepest gratitude and respect. However, Applicant still owes a significant amount of money to many creditors, and some of the debts have not yet been addressed. Although he has started to pay some of his debts, still there is no consistent track record of repayment. Except for several smaller debts that have only recently been paid, for the most part, his repayment process has just started. At this time, there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that he has carried 9

his burden of proof to establish mitigation of the government security concerns under Guideline F. 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. 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. Applicant stated that he intends to fulfill his financial obligations, but it will take time. In the event that Applicant follows through with his commitment to show financial responsibility, sometime in the future he may be found to be sufficiently reliable to properly protect and access classified information, but not at this time. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations security concern. Formal Findings Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a., through 1.l. Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.m. For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.n, 1.o. Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.p., 1.q., 1.r., 1.s, 1.t. For Applicant 10

Subparagraphs 1. u. Against Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge 11