PSH-24-0058

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure
under 5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: February 1, 2024 ) Case No.:
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 16, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In 2018, in connection with the Individual’s application for a security clearance, the
investigating agency learned that the Individual had many delinquent accounts, including a $1,505
collection account associated with a debt owed to Verizon Wireless, a $263 past due balance
associated with American First Finance, and a $341 collection account associated with a debt owed
to Direct TV.2 Exhibit (Ex.) 19 at 391–96, 406–10, 430–40.3 During an Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI) conducted on May 23, 2018, when asked about the Verizon Wireless balance, the
Individual stated it stemmed from a cell phone bill he had not paid, and he intended to contact
Verizon and arrange a payment plan. Id. at 407. When asked about the American First Finance
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 Although a credit report accessed January 30, 2018, identified the creditor associated with this account as Nationwide
Insurance, the Individual identified it as Direct TV. Compare Ex. 19 at 432 with id. at 408.
3 The exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
- 2 -
balance, the Individual stated it involved financing for a living room set, that he was one month
behind on payments, and that he intended to make arrangements to catch up on payments. Id. When
asked about the Direct TV balance, the Individual stated it was for equipment rental and return
fees that he failed to pay, and he intended to contact the creditor and arrange for payment. Id. at
408.
On February 8, 2019, the Individual responded to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) issued by the
Local Security Office (LSO), asking for information regarding his past due accounts. Ex. 7.
Regarding the account associated with Verizon Wireless, the Individual disclosed that he had set
up a payment plan requiring him to make $25 monthly payments starting in April 2019. Id. at 49.
Regarding the account associated with American First Finance, the Individual similarly stated that
he had set up a payment plan whereby he would pay $25 per month. Id. Regarding the account
associated with Direct TV, the Individual stated that he would be making payments of $50 starting
on February 25, 2019, and ending on November 4, 2019. Id. at 50. The Individual was also asked
about a charge off account with a balance of $2,945 associated with Snap-On Credit. Id. at 50. He
indicated that he had set up a weekly payment plan of $25 a week starting on March 1. Id. Finally,
the Individual was asked about a charge off account with a balance of $776 associated with
Security Finance. Id. at 51. He indicated that he had set up a payment plan whereby he would pay
$25 a week, and the debt would be fully resolved by November 1, 2019. Id.
When asked why had had not already resolved these debts after the May 2018 ESI, the Individual
stated:
After my interview I got a parttime job to help with paying off debt. I managed to
get my truck paid off in that time. My wife broke her leg and we went from 4
incomes down to 1. She was off work for about 6-7 wks without pay and I lost my
parttime job because she needed so much assistance.
Id. at 47.
During a 2023 reinvestigation, it was revealed that the Individual continued to have several
delinquent accounts, including a charge off account with a balance of $3,476 associated with Snap-
On Credit, a collection account with a balance of $1,505 associated with Verizon Wireless, an
account held by American First Finance with a balance of $1,310, an account held by Security
Finance with a balance of $776, a charge off account with a balance of $521 associated with World
Finance Corporation, a collection account with a balance of $354 associated with ATT DirectTV,
a collection account with a balance of $833 associated with Dish Network, and an account with
Bridgecrest in the amount of $12,312 stemming from an auto loan. Ex. 19 at 331–39. When
confronted with each of these past due accounts during an April 13, 2023, ESI, the Individual
stated he would look into the accounts and take responsibility for them. Id. at 298–302.
In response to an LOI dated August 30, 2023, the Individual provided further detail about his
efforts to resolve these accounts. Ex. 6. Regarding the Snap-On Credit account, the Individual
stated he had spoken to an account representative about setting up a payment plan, and he would
need to call and make his first payment on September 28. Id. at 28. Regarding the Verizon Wireless
account, the Individual stated he had reached out to the creditor but had not yet been able to
- 3 -
authenticate his account. Id. at 29. Regarding the American First Finance account, he indicated he
had not yet been able to make contact with the creditor. Id. at 30. Regarding the Dish Network
account, the Individual stated he had set up a payment plan consisting of four monthly payments
of $125, to begin on September 27, 2023. Id. at 31. Regarding the Security Finance account, he
indicated that he had not yet made contact with the settlement department. Id. at 32. Regarding the
World Finance Corporation account, the Individual stated that he had recently communicated with
the creditor but had not yet settled the debt or set up a payment plan. Id. at 33. With regard to the
ATT DirectTV account, the Individual stated he contacted the creditor and resolved to settle the
debt for $177.20, with payment to be made by the beginning of October. Id. at 34. Regarding the
Bridgecrest account, the Individual indicated he would wait to pay off this debt until the older
accounts were settled and paid. Id. at 37.
On September 18, 2023, the Individual signed and submitted to the LSO a Certification to Provide
Information, by which he agreed to furnish no later than October 16, 2023, copies of payment
plans and proof of payments made on all of his past due accounts. Ex. 16. Per this agreement, the
Individual provided documentation showing that payment plans had been established for three of
the eight accounts described above, but not showing that any payments had yet been made. Ex. 12;
Ex. 13; Ex. 15.
On December 7, 2023, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a
security clearance. Ex. 1 at 9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the
LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 6.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted 19 exhibits (Ex. 1–19). The Individual submitted four exhibits (Ex.
A–D).4 At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of four
co-workers. Tr. at 13, 23, 31, 40, 48. The LSO did not call any witnesses.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline F as the basis for its determination that the Individual was
ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6. “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. According to the LSO, the behavior that
gave rise to the Guideline F concerns were the Individual’s failure to resolve past due debts
with Snap-On Credit, Security Finance, Verizon Wireless, American First Finance, Dish
Network, ATT DirectTV, and Bridgecrest, despite his repeated assurances that he would.
4 The Individual’s exhibits were submitted one week after the conclusion of the hearing. I notified the parties during
the hearing that I would hold the record open to allow for the submission of post-hearing exhibits, and on that basis
have entered these exhibits into the record. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0058 (Tr.) at 96–97.
- 4 -
Ex. 1 at 6–8. This allegation justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline F. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (b), (c).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual called as witnesses four co-workers, who have worked with the Individual for all
or part of the last six years. Tr. at 14, 24, 32, 40–41. Two of them described themselves as friends
of the Individual outside of work. Id. at 14, 41. All four of them had some general awareness of
the Individual’s financial issues, and all believed the Individual was trying to take steps to pay
down his debts. Id. at 15–17, 25–26, 28, 32–33, 37, 42–44. Two of the coworkers, who considered
themselves the Individual’s friends, testified that the Individual’s unpaid debts were attributable
to various factors, including the stressors of COVID and inflation, the fact that he is raising four
kids, and the fact that his wife has had medical issues that prevented her from keeping a steady
income. Id. at 15–16, 42–43. They also recalled that the Individual had taken on parttime work to
boost his family’s income, and he had at one time considered joining a credit counseling service.
Id. at 16–17, 19, 44. None of the Individuals characterized the Individual as an extravagant
spender, and all four attested favorably to his reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty. Id. at 17–
18, 26–27, 34–35, 44–45.
The Individual testified as to the status of the eight delinquent debts cited in the SSC. First, with
regard to Snap-On Credit, the Individual stated he incurred the debt when he purchased some tools
for a previous job, sometime around 2017. Id. at 51. He acknowledged the outstanding of balance
of $3,476. Id. He stated that he made one payment in September 2023, but had not made any
- 5 -
payments since then due to circumstances involving his wife.5 Id. at 52. Specifically, his wife had
a medical procedure done in September 2023, and then suffered a seizure in October, resulting in
her inability to work much in the time since. Id. at 52–53. When asked why he hadn’t started
making payments in 2019, as he assured DOE he would in the February 2019 LOI, he explained
that shortly after completing the LOI, his wife had broken her leg, resulting in the loss of three
incomes.6 Id. at 53–54. As a result, “this kind of fell to the side.” Id. Then, when his wife recovered
and got back to work, her income was only sufficient to cover their monthly bills. Id. at 54–55.
When asked whether he intended to resume making payments on this debt, the Individual stated
that he did. Id. at 55. His wife just went back to work, he testified, so he would be able to resume
payments at the end of May, or early June. Id. at 56–57.
With regard to Security Finance, the Individual testified that the debt was associated with a
personal loan he secured in 2017 to help with vehicle issues. Id. at 57. He acknowledged the
outstanding balance of $776 was “probably” correct. Id. at 58. The Individual could not recall
whether or when he had made any payments toward this debt and did not remember stating in the
2019 LOI that he intended to pay off the debt in full by November 2019. Id. at 58–59. He testified
that he contacted the creditor in August or September 2023, but he couldn’t recall if that had
resulted in a payment plan. Id. at 61–62.
With regard to ATT DirectTV, the Individual testified that he incurred the debt sometime around
2015 and that last year he negotiated a payment plan to resolve his outstanding debt, whereby
payments would be debited from his bank account in October and November 2023. Id. at 76, 72–
73; Ex. 13 (copy of the payment plan indicating that ATT DirectTV agreed to accept a reduced
payment of $159.48 and setting forth three scheduled payments in the amount of $53.16 each).
The Individual indicated that he believed the payments were made as scheduled, and therefore
“[p]ossibly” the debt had been paid off, although he may have been confusing this debt with
another one.7 Id. at 73. When asked why he had not resolved this debt at any time prior to 2023,
the Individual indicated that his youngest child was born at the end of 2016, so it “had fell to the
side.” Id. at 76–77. After that, he testified, he “was kind of focused on what was in front of me on
a day-to-day basis, making sure everything, groceries and whatnot, all that was taken care of.” Id.
at 77.
5 Later during his testimony, the Individual acknowledged that he had set up a payment plan with Snap-On Credit on
October 16, 2023, whereby $50 would be debited from his bank account each month beginning on October 31. Tr. at
67–68; see Ex. 12 (copy of the payment plan agreement setting forth these terms). He then asserted he probably did
not make a payment in September 2023, as he had earlier testified, but more likely he had made his first and only
payment on October 31. Tr. at 68–70. After that time, he acknowledged that his bank account likely did not have
sufficient funds for additional payments to be made. Id. at 71–72.
6 This testimony, it should be noted, was inconsistent with the Individual’s report in the 2019 LOI, where he stated
that his wife had broken her leg after the May 2018 ESI and was off work for six or seven weeks. Ex. 7 at 47.
7 The record appears to establish that the Individual had not in fact made those payments in 2023. After the hearing,
the Individual submitted into the record a document indicating a payment of $159.48, plus a $7.98 convenience fee,
was scheduled to be paid toward this debt on May 3, 2024. Ex. A at 1. The document further indicated, “Once your
payment is processed, your account owing to ATT Direct TV will be listed in our records with a $194.91 balance.”
Id.
- 6 -
With regard to World Finance Corporation, the Individual testified that he had contacted the
creditor in an effort to negotiate a settlement or payment plan, but unfortunately the creditor would
only accept a single lump sum payment. Id. at 77–78; Ex. 14 (letter from creditor indicating it
would settle the outstanding debt for a lump sum payment $416.80, payable on September 30,
3023). According to the Individual, he was unable to make that payment, due to his wife’s medical
issues and inability to work. Id. at 79–80. Shortly thereafter, he successfully entered into a payment
plan with the creditor, but he did not make any payments in accordance with the plan. Id. at 80–
81; Ex. 15 (copy of the payment plan indicating that five monthly payments of $75 would be
debited from the Individual’s bank account beginning on October 31, 2023).
With regard to Verizon Wireless, the Individual testified that the debt was incurred in 2016 when
his cell phone bill “started to get too high” after his youngest child was born, and he got behind on
his payments. Tr. at 82. He acknowledged that he had not made any payments toward this debt but
asserted that the creditor had offered him a settlement, via a text message, in the amount of
approximately $635. Id. at 83. The Individual did not recall stating in the February 2019 LOI that
he had set up monthly payments in satisfaction of this debt, but he acknowledged that he probably
did. Id. at 84. Moving forward, he testified, he would contact the creditor to set up a payment plan
and resolve the outstanding debt. Id. at 85. After the hearing, the Individual submitted into the
record a document indicating that he had entered into a payment plan to resolve his debt for
$451.69, with three monthly payments to be debited from his bank account beginning on May 30,
2024. Ex. B; Ex. C.
With regard to American First Finance, the Individual testified this was a debt associated with a
2016 purchase of an electric reclining sofa and love seat. Tr. at 86, 89. According to the Individual,
he had been making monthly payments on the debt until the motors went out, roughly a year after
he made the purchase, at which time he called the company “just to come pick them up,” but they
never came. Id. at 87, 90. At that time, he stopped making monthly payments. Id. at 90. He
acknowledged the outstanding balance of $1,310 was accurate, and he stated that he intended to
contact the creditor to negotiate a payment plan. Id. at 88–89.
With regard to Dish Network, the Individual testified this was a debt associated with the cable box
in his possession between 2015 through 2017. Id. at 92. According to the Individual, when he
discontinued his Dish Network service he sent the box back, but he still got charged for it. Id. He
didn’t dispute the debt because he felt it would “just be more of a hassle,” so he resolved to pay it
off. Id. at 92–93. He contacted the creditor around August or September 2023, and the creditor
agreed to settle the debt for around $500, with monthly payments of $125. Id. at 93–94. He made
the first payment at the end of September, but had not made any payments since. Id. at 94. Going
forward, he testified, with his wife back to work and his own parttime detailing company picking
up more work, “I can really start pushing forward on all these accounts and making payments.” Id.
at 95–96.
With regard to Bridgecrest, the Individual testified this debt was associated with a van that he
purchased in 2017. Id. at 98, 100. Around 2020 the motor blew out, and after continuing to make
payments for a few months, he had the van repossessed. Id. at 99–101. The van was sold at auction,
but the Individual was still responsible for an outstanding balance of $12,312, on which he has not
- 7 -
made any payments to date. Id. at 102–03. The Individual does not have any plans to pay off this
debt at the present time, because he intends to satisfy his other debts first. Id. at 104.
The Individual testified as to various parttime jobs he has held since 2018 in an effort to make ends
meet. First he had a job making hand railings for a few months, until his wife broke her leg and he
had to part ways sometime in 2018. Id. at 105. He then got a parttime job at a big-box retailer for
two months. Id. at 106. Thereafter he went several years without a second job, but in 2023 got
hired “as an asset protection” for another big-box retailer. Id. He was let go about a month-and-a-
half prior to the hearing due to his poor attendance, as he was missing work to take care of his
wife. Id. In addition, the Individual testified, he started a car detailing business in September 2022,
but thus far it hadn’t brought in much money. Id. at 106–07. As of the hearing date, he was actively
looking for another parttime job. Id. at 108.
In 2018, the Individual signed up with a credit counseling service, and it was helping him out with
his debts “for a while.” Id. In the time since, he has tried educate himself by reading books on the
subject and implementing a household budget. Id. at 109. He testified that he intends to enroll in
an online credit counseling course offered by his bank. Id. at 110.
With regard to his monthly budget, the Individual testified that he earns between $3,600 and $4,000
a month, with “about 500 left over a month for gas and groceries.” Id. at 115. His wife’s new job,
he testified, will bring in another $2,700 after taxes. Id. at 116. “So that will alleviate a little bit of
the financial stress,” he testified. Id. at 116–17. After the hearing, the Individual submitted into the
record a household budget he had prepared, which described his total monthly income as $8,730
and total monthly expenses as $5,950. Ex. D.
V. ANALYSIS
As indicated by his testimony Individual generally admits to the factual allegations contained in
the SSC, but he seeks to mitigate the security concerns raised by the LSO. Conditions that may
mitigate security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) include:
(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;
- 8 -
(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;
(f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and
(g) The individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file
or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
As an initial matter, the mitigating factors at paragraph (f) and (g) are inapplicable to the facts of
this case, as the LSO has not alleged that the Individual has any unexplained affluence or unpaid
taxes.
Regarding mitigating factor (a), the behavior giving rise to the security concerns – the Individual’s
failure to resolve multiple outstanding debts – began at least as early as 2018 and continues up to
the present day. As such, I cannot find that it 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.
Regarding mitigating factor (b), the Individual testified as to various conditions that inhibited his
ability to make payments towards his outstanding debts, including his youngest child’s birth in
2016, his wife’s broken leg in 2018 or 2019, and his wife’s medical procedure and seizure in 2023,
all of which placed a strain on his finances. While some of these conditions were clearly outside
the Individual’s control, there is no indication in the record that they persisted throughout the six-
year period during which the LSO alleges he failed to make payments on his debts. Nor is there
any record evidence to establish that these conditions “resulted” in the financial problems, rather
than just exacerbated conditions that were already present. In addition, the Individual did not
present evidence of actions – such as efforts to consolidate his debts or to cut back on spending –
sufficient for me to conclude that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. Indeed, with
regard to the debt associated with Dish Network, the Individual made the decision not to dispute
it despite believing he does not in fact owe it. As such, the Individual has not demonstrated
mitigation under the conditions of paragraph (b).
Regarding mitigating factor (c), while the Individual did testify that he engaged a credit counseling
service “for a while” in 2018, there is no evidence of any benefit he derived from that service, nor
are there any clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control.
As such the Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions of paragraph (c).
Regarding mitigating factor (d), the record does not contain evidence that the Individual has made
any payments on his outstanding debts since they were first identified to the LSO, other than his
recollection that he made a single payment toward his Dish Network and Snap-On Credit debts in
September and October 2023,8 and his submission of documents showing that he was scheduled
8 Regarding the Individual’s recollection of these payments, I do not assign it a high degree of weight, given his
repeated admissions at the hearing that he lacked a memory of whether and when he had contacted various creditors,
- 9 -
to make payments on his debts with ATT DirectTV and Verizon Wireless in May 2024. On the
contrary, the record is replete with evidence that the Individual entered into settlements and
payments plans with his creditors, only to fail to make payments in accordance with those
agreements. In light of these circumstances, I cannot find that the Individual has initiated and is
adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.
Regarding mitigating factor (e), as noted above, the Individual testified that he was not in fact
responsible for the debt with Dish Network, because he was charged for a cable box that he had
properly returned to the company. But the Individual failed to provide documented proof to
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provide evidence of actions to resolve the issue. As such,
the Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions of paragraph (e).
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
entered into settlements or payments plans, or made assurances to the LSO that he would resolve his debts by a date
certain. See, e.g., Tr. at 58, 59, 60, 62, 73, 76.