PSH-24-0191

*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: September 16, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0191
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 14, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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 be denied.
I. Background
On May 12, 2023, the Individual, an applicant for a DOE security clearance, submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) to a local security office (LSO). Exhibit
(Ex.) 7 at 89.2 In this QNSP, the Individual reported the following five delinquent debts: $2,954
(Debt A), $1,437 (Debt B), $2,631 (Debt C), $4,161 (Debt D), and $ 6,928 (Debt E). Ex. 7 at 82–
85.
The Individual subsequently underwent a background investigation conducted by the United States
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM obtained the Individual’s credit report (the
Report) on June 1, 2023. Ex. 6 at 31. In addition to the five delinquent debts that the Individual
reported in the QNSP, the Report indicated that the Individual had seven additional delinquent
debts: $2,614 (Debt F), $9,005 (Debt G), $6,150 (Debt H), $5,980 (Debt I), $3,705 (Debt J), $1,234
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 The exhibits submitted by the 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 the DOE.
-2-
(Debt K), and $17,176 (Debt L). Ex. 6 at 32–36. The Report further indicated that Debts A through
F were collection accounts, and Debts G-L were charge-off accounts. Ex. 6 at 32–36.
On December 4, 2023, an OPM investigator (Investigator) conducted an Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI) of the Individual. Ex. 8 at 154. During the ESI, the Individual represented that
he did not have the ability to pay any of the delinquent debts and indicated that he “planned to wait
for [each] debt to fall off of his credit report.” Ex. 8 at 156–161. The Individual further indicated
that periods of unemployment caused the delinquencies. Ex. 8 at 156–161.
The LSO subsequently issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual further inquiring
about the twelve delinquent debts and asking the Individual to provide information concerning
each of these debts. Ex. 5 at 18–26. In response to this LOI, on April 19, 2024, the Individual
stated that he intended to resolve the collection accounts, Debts A through F, and intended to let
the charge-off accounts, Debts G through L, “drop from [his] [c]redit [r]eport.” Ex. 5 at 27–28.
The Individual further represented that his current financial situation was “ok,” and asserted that
he had “learned from [his] previous mistakes.” Ex. 5 at 28.
A. Present Administrative Review Proceeding
On July 8, 2024, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a
Notification Letter informing the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. The Notification Letter
further informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to
resolve these substantial doubts. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from
the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0191 (hereinafter cited as
“Tr.”). The DOE Counsel submitted eight exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 8. The Individual
submitted four exhibits marked as Individual’s Exhibits (Ind.’s Exs.) 1 through 4.
Ind.’s Ex. 1 is a screenshot of a debt consolidation service’s (DCS) “servicing portal,” which
reflects a summary of the Individual’s overall payment progress on a debt consolidation agreement
(DCA).
Ind.’s Ex. 2 is a “program summary” of the Individual’s DCA. It is a record of the debts included
in the DCA and also reflects the total number of biweekly payments that the Individual is required
to make as part of the agreement.
Ind.’s Ex. 3 is the Individual’s enrollment application for the DCA. It reflects the terms of the
agreement as well as the Individual’s itemized monthly expenses.
-3-
Ind.’s Ex. 4 is a chart reflecting the total amount of the Individual’s settled and unsettled debt
included in the DCA. It also includes a screenshot reflecting the “available balance” in the
Individual’s DCS account.
II. The Notification Letter and the Associated Security Concerns
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
In support of this determination, the LSO cited Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Under
Guideline F, the LSO cited the Individual’s twelve delinquent debts. Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) provides that an individual’s 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. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline F include “inability” or
“unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 19(a)‒(c). Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline F are
justified.
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
Department 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).
An 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 her eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence
to mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. The Hearing and Individual’s Exhibits
-4-
The Individual testified that he was laid off from a prior job when the COVID-19 pandemic started,
and shortly before this, his wife was diagnosed with cancer.3 Tr. at 12. As a result, the Individual
stated that he “couldn’t keep up” with his debt obligations. Tr. at 11–12. He indicated that Debts
A through F all became delinquent during this time. Tr. at 22. However, he admitted that he was
“barely afloat” and paid his debt “little by little” before he was laid off. Tr. at 12.
The Individual testified that he recently entered into the DCA with the DCS. Tr. at 13–15; Ind.’s
Ex. 3 at 1–5. Under the terms of the DCA, the Individual was expected to repay the DCS for
resolving eight debts, Debts A through E and Debts H through J, by making fifty biweekly
payments of $222.67 to settle a combined debt of $33,946 owed to five creditors.4 Tr. at 15; Ind.’s
Ex. 2 at 2, 5. The Individual testified that he had not missed any payments to the DCS since he
started the DCA in September 2024. Tr. at 42; see also Ind.’s Ex. 1 at 1 (reflecting the total number
of payments made by the Individual to the DCS).
Debts F, G, K, and L were not included in the DCA. See Ind.’s Ex. 2 at 2. The Individual indicated
that Debt L was for a vehicle which he “took [] back to the dealership” to return. Tr. at 26. He
could not recall exactly when this occurred but indicated that it might have been in 2022 or 2023.
Tr. at 26. He testified that this debt “doesn’t even come up” on his current credit report anymore.5
Tr. at 26. The Individual stated that Debt G was also for a vehicle loan that he “co-signed for a
relative,” which “fell back on [him]” after “[the relative] couldn’t pay [the loan].” Tr. at 30–31.
He could not recall when Debt G became a charge-off account, but indicated that it was “maybe
the year after [Debt L was charged-off].” Tr. at 30. The Individual represented that Debt G also
“doesn’t show on [his current] credit report.” Tr. at 31.
The Individual testified that Debt K is credit card debt, however, he could not recall when it became
a charge-off account “[be]cause [he] had so many.” Tr. at 27. He indicated that Debt K remains
on his credit report, and every “once in a while,” he receives a call from the creditor regarding this
debt. Tr. at 27–28.
Based on the budget that he submitted to the DCS, the Individual indicated that he has an excess
cash flow of $836 per month after expenses.6 Tr. at 36; Ind.’s Ex. 3 at 5. In addition to his
3 The Individual admitted that he did not incur any medical expenses because of his wife’s cancer, but stated he did
have to drive her to a treatment center ninety miles away every week. Tr. at 23.
4 Although the Individual answered “yes” when asked if Debts A through F were included in the DCA, the record
reflects that Debt F is not listed among the consolidated debts in the agreement. See Ind.’s Ex. 2 at 2; Ind.’s Ex. 3 at
2. The Individual also indicated that Debts D and H might be “the same [debt][,]” however, both debts are included
in the DCA. Tr. at 29–30; Ind.’s Ex. 2 at 2.
5 Although the Individual was encouraged to submit a more recent copy of his credit report after the hearing, the
Individual did not do so. Tr. at 27, 31.
6 In this budget, the Individual reported that his current monthly take home pay is $5,000 and his monthly expenses
are $4,163. Ind.’s Ex. 1 at 6.
-5-
biweekly payments to the DCS, he noted several additional monthly expenses. He testified that
approximately one year ago, he opened five credit cards to “try[] to establish [his] credit again . .
. .”7 Tr. at 37. He also stated that he recently “took over payments on [his daughter’s vehicle
loan],” which is approximately $600 per month.8 Tr. at 39. When asked why he would assume
his daughter’s vehicle loan, the Individual stated that he “needed another vehicle” and currently
uses the car. Tr. at 40. The Individual further testified that he has not received any financial
counseling, but noted that he “wanted to try it out.” Tr. at 38.
V. Analysis
The SSC cited twelve delinquent debts. Eight of those debts are included in the DCA: Debts A,
B, C, D, E, H, I, and J. The Individual has shown that he is current on his biweekly payments to
the DCS. However, the Individual has not resolved the concerns raised by the remaining four
debts, since he has not paid off or settled any of these four remaining accounts and has no apparent
plan to address them, even though the budget he has submitted indicates he has almost $900 a
month in discretionary income. As the Individual has acknowledged, Debt K remains unresolved.
Additionally, the Individual’s claim that he has resolved Debt F by including it in the DCA is not
corroborated by the DCA, which does not list Debt F as one of the consolidated debts covered by
the agreement. The Individual testified that Debts G and L, which total approximately $26,000,
are no longer listed on his credit report as charge-off accounts; however, he did not provide any
evidence to corroborate this representation. During his hearing testimony, the Individual failed to
exhibit a full understanding of his finances, and admitted that he has continued to accumulate
expenses, such as the five lines of credit that he recently opened as well as his daughter’s vehicle
loan, which leave him with very little excess cash flow each month.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth seven conditions9 that can mitigate security concerns under
Guideline F. None of these conditions are present in the instant case.
Paragraph 20(a) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline F may be mitigated when
the individual has shown that “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(a). The
concerns regarding four of the Individual’s debts remain unresolved, and he only recently entered
7 The Individual asserted that these credit card payments appeared on his budget as “other expenses” in the amount of
$240 per month. Tr. at 37; see also Ex. 3 at 5. He additionally testified that each credit card had a limit of either $200
or $300. Tr. at 38.
8 The Individual testified that his daughter’s car payment was included in the “vehicle payments” section of his budget,
which totaled $978. Tr. at 39; see also Ex. 3 at 5. He noted that the expenses arising from a second vehicle, which is
titled in his name, is also included in that section. Tr. at 39.
9 I do not discuss Paragraphs 20(f) and 20(g) because it has not been alleged that the Individual has an unexplained
affluence or failed to file his taxes appropriately.
-6-
into a debt consolidation agreement to settle the remaining eight debts. It cannot therefore be said
that the behavior happened long ago or was infrequent. Furthermore, The Individual’s solvency
concerns date back to before the pandemic, the Individual testified that he was “barely afloat” even
before he lost his job at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the record reflects that he
currently continues to assume additional debt, thereby leaving his net monthly cash flow relatively
low. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the issues are unlikely to recur. Therefore, I cannot find
that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns pursuant to ¶ 20(a).
Paragraph 20(b) states that security concerns raised under Guideline F may be mitigated when the
individual has shown that the conditions that caused the financial problem were beyond the
individual’s control and that the individual acted responsibly given the circumstances.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(b). Here, although the Individual testified that the delinquencies
were caused by the loss of his job, he also acknowledged that he was struggling to keep up with
his debt even before this time. Moreover, even after he obtained his present employment and a
positive cash flow, the Individual has continued to incur additional debts, without addressing at
least four of his outstanding debts. Accordingly, I cannot find that the Individual’s financial
problems were beyond his control or that he acted responsibly given the circumstances.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns pursuant to ¶ 20(b).
Under Paragraph 20(c), the security concerns may be mitigated if the individual is receiving or has
received financial counseling for the problem from a “legitimate and credible source” and the
financial problems are “being resolved” or “under control.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(c).
The Individual testified that he has not received any financial counseling to date. And as
previously stated, the concerns regarding four of his debts are not being resolved or under control.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns pursuant to ¶ 20(c).
Paragraph 20(d) provides that security concerns under Guideline F may be mitigated when “the
individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(d). As previously discussed, the Individual has
made a good-faith effort to resolve eight of his debts. However, four other debts remain for which
he has not made any efforts to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve those debts.
Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns pursuant to ¶ 20(d).
Under Paragraph 20(e), the Individual may mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F if he
can show a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debts. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 20(e). Here, the Individual has not disputed that the unresolved debts were his.
Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns pursuant to ¶ 20(e).
I therefore find that the Individual has not sufficiently established the presence of any of the seven
mitigating conditions set forth at Guideline F. Accordingly, I find that he has not resolved the
security concerns raised under Guideline F.
VI. Conclusion
-7-
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline F. After
considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner, I find
that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline F. Accordingly,
the Individual has not demonstrated that granting his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the
Individual’s security clearance should be denied. This Decision may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals