PSH-25-0058

*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: January 8, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0058
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 5, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. (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 or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”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 granted.
I. BACKGROUND
In April 2011, the Individual was denied a security clearance by DOE due to unresolved delinquent
debts. Exhibit (Ex.) 4 at 17.2 More than ten years later, in April 2023, the Individual completed a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in connection with a new application for a
security clearance. Ex. 7. In the QNSP, the Individual admitted he had failed to file his state and
Federal income taxes for tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018, and that he owed an estimated $22,000
for these tax years. Id. at 105–06. The Individual also reported two additional financial issues: an
approximately $15,753 debt arising from an automobile loan, which became delinquent in 2020,
and a $2,276 debt arising from a personal loan, which became delinquent in 2022. Id. at 107–08.
A credit report dated May 16, 2023, confirmed the $15,753 and $2,276 balances and that both
accounts were in collections. Ex. 6 at 33–34.
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 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 -
On November 16, 2023, the Individual was interviewed by an investigator in connection with his
clearance application. Ex. 8 at 210–18. With regard to his failure to file taxes for 2016, 2017, and
2018, the Individual reported “preparing the taxes but not mailing them because the tax paperwork
was placed in moving boxes and never unpacked.” Id. at 216. He indicated that he would endeavor
to file the delinquent taxes by mid-December 2023. Id. Regarding the delinquent automobile loan
debt, the Individual stated he opened the account in 2015, it became delinquent in 2021 “due to
multiple unemployments,” and the vehicle was repossessed in the summer of 2022. Id. Regarding
the delinquent personal loan debt, the Individual stated he opened the account in 2020, and it
became delinquent in 2021, also due to “multiple unemployments.” Id. The Individual stated he
would contact both creditors in December 2023 to establish payment arrangements. Id.
The Local Security Office (LSO) sent the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which the
Individual completed on August 21, 2024. Ex. 5. The Individual acknowledged he had still not
filed his taxes for 2016, 2017, and 2018,3 and further disclosed that he was delinquent on filing his
tax returns in two separate states for those tax years. Id. at 20–24. As for the reason for not filing,
the Individual stated his taxes “[g]ot lost during the previuos [sic] 2 change of addresses,” but that
“they will be filed as soon as they are found.” Id. The Individual stated he had not sought
extensions of the filing deadlines, and he would set up a payment plan as soon as he found out how
much he owed for the tax years in question. Id. at 24. The Individual confirmed that he was current
on filing his taxes for tax years 2020 through the present. Id.
Regarding the two delinquent financial accounts, the Individual stated that he had not yet settled
the accounts, but was “trying to get a lower settlement payment.” Id. at 24–26. He disclosed two
additional delinquencies as well: $190 with an anesthesiologist and $234 with a healthcare facility.
Id. at 28. He described his financial situation as “living paycheck to paycheck,” but represented
that he lives within his means and would attempt to satisfy his delinquent accounts “when I get
OT again at work.” Id. at 27.
On October 21, 2024, 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 7–9. 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 5–6.
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 eight exhibits (Ex. 1–8). The Individual submitted 12 exhibits (Ex.
A–L). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf. The LSO did not call any
witnesses.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
3 The Individual also stated, “[s]o far I have gotten a letter from the IRS for 2019,” suggesting that he was also
delinquent on filing his taxes for 2019. Ex. 5 at 20.
- 3 -
The LSO cited Guideline F as the basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible for
access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. “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 factors that gave rise to the Guideline F concern were: the
Individual’s failure to file and pay federal and state income taxes, in two separate states, for tax
years 2016, 2017, and 2018; his four delinquent accounts with balances of $15,753, $2,276, $190,
and $234; and his admission that he is not currently able to satisfy his delinquent accounts. Ex. 1
at 5–6. These allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline F. See Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 19(a), (c), (f).
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 testified that, as of the hearing, he had still not filed his federal taxes for 2016 and
2017 nor his state taxes for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019,4 but that he intended to file them later
that day. Tr. at 10–11, 24. As for his 2018 and 2019 federal taxes, he had received letters in late
4 Regarding the Individual’s statement on the LOI that he was delinquent on filing taxes in two separate states, he
testified that his tax preparer advised him in 2021 he did not need to file in the second state because he did not reside
in that state but only worked there for part of the year. Tr. at 30–32. He could not explain why he would have answered
differently on the LOI in 2024, but confirmed, “I should have just put [the state where I resided], not [the other state].”
Id. at 34. Given that the security concerns associated with the Individual’s delinquent taxes in the second state are
based entirely on his LOI response, which he has now amended, I will not consider those concerns as part of the
Guideline F concerns at issue in this hearing.
- 4 -
2024 and early 2025 indicating the IRS had filed them on his behalf. Id. at 15–16, 20–22.
According to the Individual, as soon as he completed the filing of his taxes for all four years, he
would set up payment plans for the amount owed. Id. at 11; see id. at 15 (stating he would like to
pay $500 a month to the state, and $500 weekly to the IRS). The Individual submitted into the
record payment vouchers from the IRS for 2016, 2017, and 2018, showing that he owed a total of
$12,709 for those tax years.5 Ex. E–G; Tr. at 10. He also submitted payment vouchers from the
state tax authority showing that he owed a total of $7,380 for tax years 2016 through 2019. Ex. H–
K; Tr. at 24. The Individual confirmed that he filed his taxes and received refunds for tax years
2020 through 2024. Tr. at 23. His wife, from whom he divorced in early 2025, kept the refunds for
2020 through 2023. Id. at 23. His state refund for 2024 was $476, and his federal refund for 2024,
in the amount of $4,186, was applied to the Individual’s past due obligation. Tr. at 19, 23, 26; Ex.
A–C.
The Individual testified that his taxes for 2016, 2017, and 2018 had been prepared at the time they
were due, but he had been unable to locate them in order to file them. Tr. at 12–13. “I had them in
an envelope,” he stated, “but when I was currently with my wife, we had moved several times. So
she had stored them for me, and she forgot to tell me where. So those times we have moved, I had
no idea where they were.” Id. He only just found them “this past weekend.” Id. at 14. He had failed
to look harder previously, because his mind had been focused on his pending divorce. Id. at 12–
14.
Regarding the $15,753 delinquent debt, the Individual submitted a letter from the collection
company dated July 7, 2023, indicating that as of May 31, 2020, he owed $13,781.79.6 Ex. D. He
testified that the debt went into delinquency during the COVID-19 pandemic, because his income
was interrupted every time someone at work tested positive, resulting in a work stoppage, which
left him unable to keep up with monthly payments. Tr. at 39. The Individual testified that he had
not yet reached out to the collection company to set up a payment plan, because he was hoping to
address his tax obligations first. Id. at 37–39.
Regarding the $2,276 delinquent debt, the Individual stated that it went into delinquency around
March 2022 when he was laid off from his prior job.7 Id. at 47. The Individual submitted an email
dated May 13, 2025, confirming a settlement amount of $1,365.72, to be paid in monthly
installments of $125. Ex. L; Tr. at 40–42. After negotiating with the creditor for nearly a year, the
Individual had agreed to this settlement amount the day before the hearing, because he “just wanted
5 According to the Individual, the IRS had since sent him a revised bill for tax year 2018, showing that he owed
approximately $3,000 more than the voucher stated. Tr. at 16. He further testified that he owed “just shy of $10,000”
for tax year 2019. Id. at 17.
6 It is unclear from the record what accounts for the discrepancy between the amount identified in the July 2023 letter
and the amount listed in the May 2023 credit report. The Individual testified that the reduced amount could be a result
of the fact that his vehicle was repossessed in 2021, and the proceeds were applied to his debt, but that would not
explain why the amount was lower in 2020, as stated in the letter. Tr. at 36–37.
7 The Individual testified that he was laid off because his job required a security clearance, and his employer learned
that he had been previously denied a security clearance in 2011. Tr. at 46. The Individual found employment with his
current employer less than two months later, in May 2022, although initially it was only parttime. Id. at 47.
- 5 -
to have proof, hey, I’m going to pay this off.” Tr. at 41–42. The Individual stated that he would
make the first payment on the Friday after the hearing. Id.
Regarding the $190 debt to the anesthesiologist and the $234 debt to the healthcare facility, the
Individual testified he had already paid them off, although he added that he now owes the facility
$300 or $400 in co-pays. Id. at 42–43. He plans to pay these in $100 monthly installments. Id. at
44–45.
The Individual testified that he has no money saved, but his weekly income is $1,500. Id. at 49.
The Individual’s monthly expenses include a $843 truck payment, a $655 vehicle payment for his
wife,8 a $470 insurance payment, a $110 cell phone payment, and $150 in credit card payments.
Id. at 50–53. The Individual does not have monthly rent payments, because he is staying with a
friend. Id. at 52. He testified that he had contacted a couple of credit counseling agencies, but he
was not satisfied with their suggested approaches to handling his debt, so he did not pursue them.
Id. at 54–55. Nonetheless, the Individual feels “positive” about his plan for resolving his debts
going forward. Id. at 56.
V. ANALYSIS
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline F 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;
(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.
8 The Individual stated that the truck and vehicle payments would be completed by November 2026, allowing him to
put more money towards his tax obligations. Tr. at 51.
- 6 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.9
I will first address the allegation that the Individual failed to file and pay his 2016, 2017, and 2018
taxes. At the hearing, the Individual admitted he had still not filed his tax returns for these three
years and also for 2019, except for his 2018 and 2019 Federal tax returns, which he claimed
without documentary evidence that the IRS had filed on his behalf. He also admitted that he had
not yet paid or set up payment plans for the tens of thousands of dollars he owes to the IRS and
the state tax authority, except noting that his $4,186 federal refund from 2024 had been
automatically applied to his tax debt. Although the Individual testified that he would be filing his
taxes later on the day of the hearing and would be setting up payment plans shortly thereafter, the
record contains no evidence that he in fact did so. As such, I cannot find the Individual has made
arrangements to file or pay his taxes, nor can I find his behavior happened so long ago or
infrequently that it is unlikely to recur. On the contrary, the behavior continued up until the day of
the hearing, which demonstrates that the circumstances giving rise to his delinquency remain
ongoing. The Individual has thus not resolved the concerns related to his past-due tax obligations
under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (a) or (g).
With regard to the mitigating condition at paragraph (b), the Individual testified that his failure to
timely file his 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax returns resulted from his inability to locate the
completed returns, which had been stored by his wife when they had moved, until the weekend
before the hearing. Even assuming this constitutes a condition beyond the Individual’s control, I
am unable to find the Individual acted responsibly under the circumstances, particularly where the
tax returns were allegedly lost for several years, he failed to request an extension, and he
acknowledged he could have looked harder for them. Moreover, the Individual offered no excuse
for his failure to pay his delinquent taxes, other than wanting to wait until all the outstanding tax
returns were filed. The Individual has not, therefore, resolved the tax-related concerns under the
conditions set forth in paragraphs (b).10
I will next address the Individual’s four delinquent accounts cited by the LSO and the Individual’s
admission that he was unable to satisfy these debts. Regarding the $190 and $234 delinquencies, I
find the Individual has mitigated the associated security concerns pursuant to the conditions at
paragraph (d), through his testimony that he paid these off prior to the hearing. Although he did
not provide any documentary evidence to corroborate this testimony, I nonetheless found his
testimony credible in light of his unprompted admission that he has since incurred $300 or $400
of additional debt in unresolved co-pays. As to the other two delinquencies, the Individual has not
demonstrated adherence to a good-faith effort to resolve them. The $2,276 debt had only just been
reduced to $1,365.72 and put into payment plan status the day before the hearing, with no payments
yet made, and the Individual had admittedly taken no action to resolve the $15,753 debt. Both
debts had become delinquent more than three years prior to the hearing. Accordingly, I cannot find
9 The mitigating factors at paragraphs (e) and (f) are inapplicable to the facts of this case, as the LSO’s security
concerns do not involve unexplained affluence, and the Individual does not dispute the legitimacy of his past-due
debts. The Individual has also failed to satisfy the mitigating factor at paragraph (c), as he stated in his testimony that
he has declined to pursue financial counseling. As such, I will not further address these mitigating factors in my
analysis.
10 The mitigating factor at paragraph (d) is inapplicable to the tax-related concerns, as it relates solely to unresolved
debts.
- 7 -
that that passage of time, the infrequency of the behavior, or any other circumstances provide a
basis to mitigate the security concerns associated with the Individual’s delinquent accounts. The
Individual has failed to resolve the concerns under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(d).
With regard to the mitigating condition at paragraph (b), the Individual testified that his
delinquencies resulted from loss of income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a layoff from
employment, which were undoubtedly circumstances beyond his control. The Individual also
confirmed that he regained employment in May 2022, although it was only parttime at first.
Nonetheless, despite knowing that his financial issues could jeopardize his ability to obtain a
security clearance, the Individual did not enter into a payment plan for the $2,276 debt until the
day before the hearing, and he declined to even contact the $15,753 creditor to begin negotiations,
on the basis that he wanted to first resolve his delinquent tax obligations. As noted supra, however,
the Individual failed to demonstrate that he acted responsibly regarding his tax obligations, and
therefore I cannot find that he did so regarding these two delinquent accounts. The Individual has
not resolved the security concerns under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b).11
In light of the foregoing, I find the Individual has failed to resolve the concerns raised by the LSO
under Guideline F.
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 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 Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. 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
11 The mitigating factor at paragraph (g) is inapplicable to the debt-related concerns, as it relates solely to delinquent
tax obligations.