ISCR Case No. 26-00602

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

)

In the matter of: )

) ISCR Case No. 26-00602

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ___________________________________ ) Appearances For Government: George A. Hawkins, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/28/2026 Decision ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 30, 2025. On April 24, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. Applicant answered the SOR on May 15, 2026, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on June 3, 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. She received the FORM on June 9, 2026, and responded. The case was assigned to me on September 21, 2026. 1

The documents included with her Response have been marked as Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A through F,

The Government’s FORM consists of the SOR (Government Exhibit (GE) 1), Applicant’s answer to the SOR (GE 2), and the documents in support of the allegations in the SOR (GE 3-8). Applicant responded to the FORM and objected to GE 4 through 8. GE 3 is admitted into evidence, without objection. Applicant’s answer (GE 2) and her response to the FORM (Response) contain multiple attachments. The documents included with her answer were collectively marked as GE 2.1 2 and admitted into evidence, without objection. Applicant’s objection to the admission and consideration of GE 8 on the grounds that the document is a report of investigation without an authenticating witness is sustained. See Directive, Enclosure 3 ¶ E3.1.20. GE 8 is not admitted. Applicant’s objection to the admission and consideration of GE 4 through 7 on the grounds that the documents contain inaccurate and erroneous information is noted for the record and overruled. GE 4 through 7 are admitted into evidence, over objections. Credit bureau reports are ordinary business records admissible as an exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence hearsay rule without an authenticating witness. See ISCR Case No. 18-00552 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 18, 2019); ISCR Case No. 07-08925 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2008); Directive, Enclosure 3 ¶ E3.1.19. Applicant’s disagreement with the accuracy of the information contained within GE 4 through 7 is noted and shall be considered toward the weight of the evidence. Findings of Fact The SOR alleges under Guideline F that Applicant has three delinquent consumer debts that total approximately $48,569 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c). (GE 1) She denies all the allegations. (GE 2) Applicant is 57 years old, currently separated, previously divorced, and has two adult children. She received her bachelor’s degree in 1994 and has never served in the military. She has been employed with her current government contractor sponsor since July 2023. She worked for the same employer from 1994 to 2018, after which she had short sporadic periods of employment and unemployment until March 2021. She was at her previous employment from March 2021 to June 2023. (GE 3) In her SCA, Applicant attributed the alleged debts to suspected fraudulent and unauthorized charges. (GE 3 at 30, 32) In her Response, she explained that she experienced a temporary period of financial strain from late 2023 through 2024 due to, “a personal separation, an employment-driven relocation, unexpected medical expenses, and suspected account compromise.” (AE A-C) She filed an identity theft report in June 1 GE 2 documentation included settlement agreements and payment schedules related to the accounts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c. 2 AE A: Relocation Documentation; AE B: Medical Emergency Documentation; AE C: Data Breach Notification, Dispute Filings, and Dispute Results Documentation; AE D: Updated Creditor Statements; AE E: Credit Monitoring Enrollment and Legal Counsel Documentation; and AE F: Vehicle Documentation. 2

2023 (AE C), relocated for her current job in mid-2023 (AE A), and experienced an unexpected medical emergency in January 2024 (AE B). Her efforts to investigate potentially fraudulent activity continued through 2025. During this period, she contacted creditors and sought verification of authorized transactions with the intent to pay back verified debt, as well as filed disputes with the various credit reporting bureaus. (AE C) She asserts that her credit bureau reports contain multiple inaccuracies and inconsistencies that do not reflect the verified status of her accounts. She submitted evidence of data breaches and an account that was deleted from her credit file. However, evidence that the breach and fraudulent activity suspected was directly tied to the three accounts alleged in the SOR is limited. The dispute process was lengthy and involved filing formal disputes, negotiations between creditors and credit management agencies, enrolling in credit monitoring, and retaining legal counsel to assist in the resolution. Ultimately, it was determined that the debts were legitimate. (AE C-E) In early 2026, Applicant reached agreements with the creditors of all three alleged debts and entered into payment arrangements at or near the time of the issuance of the SOR. (AE D) Documentation included in Applicant’s answer to the SOR (GE2) and Response verify that she has addressed the alleged debts as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a: A delinquent debt to Creditor A on an account totaling approximately $9,994. In May 2026, Applicant reached a negotiated settlement with the creditor where the total debt was reduced to approximately $6,497 and she was to make 11 monthly payments of approximately $541 beginning in June 2026 through April 2027. (GE 2 at 4-19) As of the date of her response, the balance on this debt had been reduced to $4,873. (AE D) SOR ¶ 1.b: A delinquent debt to Creditor B for Account 1 totaling approximately $17,712. In April 2026, Applicant reached a negotiated settlement with the creditor where the total debt was reduced to approximately $15,055 and she entered a payment agreement to pay approximately $236 per month on this account until it has been paid in full. The first payment of approximately $885 was made in April 2026. The remaining payments were to continue per the schedule at $236 a month through April 2031. (GE 2 at 19-20) As of the date of her response, she had made four payments and the balance on this debt had been reduced to approximately $13,462. (AE D) SOR ¶ 1.c: A delinquent debt to Creditor B for Account 2 totaling approximately $20,863. In April 2026, Applicant reached a negotiated settlement with the creditor where the total debt was reduced to approximately $16,691 and she entered a payment agreement to pay approximately $260 per month on this account until it has been paid in full. The first payment of approximately $1,043 was made in April 2026. The remaining payments were to continue per the schedule at $260 a month through April 2031. (GE 2 at 19, 22) As of the date of her response, she had made four payments and the balance on this debt had been reduced to approximately $14,866. (AE D) 3

Applicant asserts that her professional history reflects long-term stability, sound judgment, and adherence to security requirements. She is actively involved in her community and participates in animal rescue and fostering. She has resolved the underlying issues that resulted in her financial delinquencies, remains in control of her finances, and has the financial means to continue to honor her above-described payment arrangements along with her other debts and obligations. 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 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. 4

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: 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 evidence in the FORM establishes the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(b): unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations. 5

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; AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the p

erson’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; AG ¶ 20(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; AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and AG ¶ 20(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. Applicant bears the burdens of production and persuasion in mitigation. Applicants are not held to a standard of perfection in their debt-resolution efforts, and they are not required to be debt-free. “Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his 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). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00987 at 3 n.5 (App. Bd. Aug. 14, 2014). The mere fact that it might take Applicant a long time to complete a payment agreement is not a reason to deny them a clearance. See ISCR Case No. 19-01624 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2022). Mitigation is established. AG ¶ 20(a) and the first prong of AG ¶ 20(b) apply in part. There is evidence that Applicant faced circumstances beyond her control at the time her debts were becoming delinquent, to include a medical emergency, relocation costs, and suspected fraudulent activity. However, she failed to clearly demonstrate how these events impacted her finances and her ability to pay the three alleged debts. The second prong of AG ¶ 20(b) applies in part. Applicant suspected identity theft and fraudulent charges. It is reasonable for her to have sought investigation and verification of charges before agreeing to pay the debts. She acted responsibly under the circumstances inasmuch as she continued working with creditors to reach a resolution. However, although she presented evidence of data breaches and an account that was 6

deleted from her credit file; evidence that the breach and fraudulent activity suspected was directly tied to the three accounts alleged in the SOR is limited. AG ¶ 20(c) applies in part. Although there is no evidence of financial counseling, Applicant has enrolled in credit monitoring and there are clear indications that her financial condition is under control. AG ¶ 20(d) applies because Applicant has initiated and is adhering to good faith efforts to repay her overdue creditors. It is noted that these arrangements were finalized after the issuance of the SOR and therefore a new track record of consistent payments is not quite established. That said, the evidence supports finding that her efforts to resolve were initiated prior to the issuance of the SOR and she is on track to establishing a record of timely payments. Lastly, AG ¶ 20(e) applies in part. Applicant presented sufficient evidence to show that she had a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of some of her past-due debt and submitted documented proof to substantiate the basis of her dispute and the actions she took. Even though the record indicates that ultimately the SOR-alleged debts were determined to not be a result of her suspected fraud, partial application of this mitigating condition is still warranted under the circumstances. The reasons underlying an applicant’s financial problems are relevant matters for an administrative judge to consider in a Guideline F case. In conducting a mitigation analysis, it is important to determine if those underlying reasons have been fully resolved or continue to exist in assessing whether the financial problems are likely to persist or recur. ISCR Case No. 21-01347 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2022). The evidence presented here supports a finding that the root cause of Applicant’s financial problems has been resolved, and the remaining debts are being responsibly addressed. She has presented a clear plan of resolution, supported by documentation, and an ability to pay. Whole-Person Concept 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. In applying the whole- person concept, an 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. 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; 7

(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 I make the following 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: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: For Applicant Conclusion I conclude that 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. Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge 8