PSH-25-0145

*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: May 19, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0145
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 8, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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
The Individual applied for access authorization in connection with employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 The Individual submitted an August 2024 Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP) in which he self-reported delinquent financial obligations and
his failure to file federal and state tax returns for tax years 2015 through 2023. Ex. 7 at 92–101. A
credit report from September 2024 reflected a combination of charged-off accounts and accounts
under collections. Ex. 6 at 35–38. The local security office (LSO) sent the Individual a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI), to which the Individual submitted a response on March 5, 2025. Ex. 5 at 22–
32 (March 2025 LOI Response). In his March 2025 LOI Response, the Individual re-confirmed
that he had several delinquent financial obligations with creditors and had not filed federal or state
tax returns for tax years 2015 through 2023. Id. at 23–25, 27–31.
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 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in
the top right corner of each exhibit page.
2
Due to the unresolved security concerns associated with his failure to file tax returns and to satisfy
financial obligations, the LSO informed the Individual in a May 2025 Notification Letter that it
possessed reliable information creating a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a
security clearance. Ex. 1 at 6–8. In an attachment to the letter entitled Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised concerns under
Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10. 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
review hearing. The LSO submitted nine numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–9) into the record. The
Individual submitted eight exhibits into the record, which have been combined into a single PDF
and marked with letters (Ex. A–H).3 The Individual testified on his own behalf and presented three
other witnesses (Witness 1–3); the LSO presented no witnesses. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0145 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”) at 3.
II. NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility 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 .
. . information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. Among the conditions set forth in this guideline
that could raise disqualifying security concerns are the “inability to satisfy debts; . . . a history of
not meeting financial obligations; . . . consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or
irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by . . . a history of late payments or of non-
payment . . . ; [and the] failure to file or pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or
failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required . . . .” Id. at ¶ 19(a), (c), (e)–
(f).
The SSC cited to information regarding three charged-off accounts (Charged-Off Accounts 1–3)
and ten other delinquent accounts in collections (Collections Accounts 1–10). Ex. 1 at 5. The SSC
also noted the outstanding amount due for each of those accounts. Those accounts are summarized
in Table 1.
3 References to the Individual’s exhibits are to the exhibit letter and the PDF page number.
3
Table 1: Accounts Charged Off and in Collections
Creditor(s) Account Liability
Regional Finance Charged-Off Account 1 $6,633
World Finance Charged-Off Account 2 $3,035
XXXXXXXX Area Federal Credit Union (the Charged-Off Account 3 $43
Federal Credit Union)
Vance and Huffman Collections Account 1 $525
Tempoe Collections Account 2 $525
Jefferson Capital Collections Account 3 $6,000
Jefferson Capital (Regional Finance) Collections Account 4 $4,959
Jefferson Capital (Affirm/StubHub) Collections Account 5 $1,925
Affirm Collections Account 6 $434
LVNV Funding (Credit One Bank) Collections Account 7 $725
Midland Credit Management (Credit One Bank) Collections Account 8 $696
Jefferson Capital (Victoria [sic] Secret) Collections Account 9 $554
Portfolio Recovery (Capital One) Collections Account 10 $516
Id. The SSC also cited to information regarding the Individual’s failure to file tax returns for tax
years 2015 through 2023. Id. The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline 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 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).
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 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. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
4
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. The Individual’s Failure to File Tax Returns and Tax Liability
The Individual testified that he has worked since 18, starting in about 2008. Tr. at 81–82; see also
Ex. 7 at 69 (QNSP indicating the Individual’s birth year as 1990). The Individual testified that he
filed tax returns for several tax years up until tax year 2015. Tr. at 82. When asked what had made
the Individual stop filing tax returns starting with tax year 2015, he testified that his second
daughter was born in 2012, requiring him to take an extended period away from work. Id. at 82–
83; see also Ex. 7 (responding to the QNSP that he had failed to file tax returns because he was a
“young parent” and “due to income”).The Individual also noted that his father had passed away in
2014. Tr. at 58, 82–83.
After he stopped filing tax returns, the Individual indicated that he returned to work at some
unspecified time and that he “just didn’t understand the concept of taxes at the time.” Id. at 82–83.
He explained that he believed that for “those years [he] didn’t file them” he would be “penalized”
for the amounts that he “probably owed.” Id. at 83 (referencing “how the [Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)] send[s] people to prison for evading taxes”). The Individual did not understand that he
“could make payment arrangements” for past-owed taxes. Id. at 82–83. The Individual’s failure to
file timely federal and state tax returns recurred for tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020,
2021, 2022, and 2023. Ex. 5 at 27–31; Ex. 7 at 92–96.4 During all that time, the Individual claimed
to have never received a notification from the tax authorities but admitted that he knew he had to
file his tax returns. Tr. at 50.
When the Individual applied for access authorization in August 2024, his past due tax returns
remained outstanding. Ex. 7 at 92–96. In the August 2024 QNSP, the Individual indicated that he
had “[h]ired [a] tax professional to file and help [him] get on a payment plan . . . .” Id. Seven
months later, as indicated in his March 2025 LOI Response, those tax returns remained past due:
“They [the past due tax returns] remain at the office of [a tax preparer] being prepared to file and
be put on a repayment plan.” Ex. 5 at 27–30. In a letter dated November 12, 2025, a tax preparer
confirmed that he helped prepare the Individual’s “tax returns for tax years 2015[–]2022.” Ex. D
at 4; see also Ex. E at 5 (cashier’s check evincing that the Individual paid the tax preparer for
services rendered). The letter makes no reference to the outstanding tax return for tax year 2023.
Ex. D at 4.
At the hearing, the Individual represented that “after . . . the prehearing [conference]”—which was
held on November 19, 2025—the Individual “did go back to [his] tax [preparer]” and since then
“all of them [the tax returns] have been filed and sent [via] certified mail.” Tr. at 46; see Prehearing
Conference Memorandum (Nov. 19, 2025). As supporting documentary evidence, the Individual
submitted (1) two certified mail receipts stamped November 21, 2025, and listing the “IRS” and
“[state] TAX + REV” without a street address and (2) photos of two envelopes—one addressed to
a street address for the IRS and another addressed to a street address for the state tax authority. Ex.
F at 6–9 (formatting in original). He testified that he has not received correspondence confirming
that the returns were received by the tax authorities. Tr. at 49. The documentation only evinces (1)
that a tax preparer helped the Individual prepare returns for tax years 2015 through 2022; (2) the
4 The Individual testified that, with the assistance of his mother, he filed his 2024 tax returns. Tr. at 50.
5
Individual paid the tax preparer; and (3) the Individual mailed documents to the IRS and state tax
authority. I have no documentary evidence demonstrating that the IRS or the state tax authority
received any tax returns and accepted the tax returns as properly filed. I cannot find sufficient
evidence to credit that the Individual properly filed his tax returns with only his testimony and the
documentary evidence provided.
Regarding his tax liability, the Individual indicated that “there were some years that [he] should
have gotten a [refund], [and] some years that [he] owed.” Tr. at 47.5 Accordingly, he would wait
for a “bill from the IRS and from the [state tax authority]” then “get on a payment plan so [he] can
actively start paying these taxes monthly.” Id. The Individual estimated that the amount he owed
“wasn’t a huge number” and that his “refund[s] . . . will deduct from the total balance.” Id. When
asked to provide more specific estimates, the Individual testified that he owed “roughly $11,000”
to the federal and state tax authorities, which would be offset by about
“$3,800.” Id. at 48. Accordingly, he owed “$7,200, approximately” in past due taxes. Id. As stated
above, I have no documentary evidence demonstrating that the IRS or the state tax authority
received the Individual’s tax returns; accordingly, I have no evidence that the relevant tax
authorities accepted the Individual’s calculation of his tax obligations.
b. Charged-Off Accounts
For Charged-Off Accounts 1 and 2, the Individual testified the debts originally arose from personal
loans. Tr. at 50–52. The Individual described the original creditors of Charged-Off Accounts 1 and
2 as “finance compan[ies]” that were “[ ] payday-loan type place[s].” Id. at 51–52. At the hearing,
the Individual testified that he was trying to “put [his] kids . . . and [his] family and friends first”
and was “just trying to make a living . . . .” Id. at 50–51; see also Ex. 9 at 169 (Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI) notes reflecting that the Individual had taken these loans for “school shopping”
and “personal use”).
Regarding Regional Finance and the $6,633 balance on Charged-Off Account 1, the September
2024 credit report reflects that the account was “assigned” in April 2022 with an original balance
of $5,210. Ex. 6 at 35. The Individual testified that this debt arose when he originally took out a
$2,000 “high-interest loan[ ]” about “four or five years ago.” Tr. at 53–54. The Individual
estimated that the account has since accrued approximately $4,000 of interest. Id. at 54. The
Individual testified that Regional Finance “sent it [the debt] to” a collection agency and that he
contacted that collection agency to determine if the account was still payable. Id. According to the
Individual’s testimony, a representative of the collection agency informed him that he had several
payment options and offered to settle the account for a one-time payment of $2,800. Id. at 54–55.
According to the Individual, the offer was “good until they charge off the account” and it was his
“goal . . . to pay it before that happens.” Id. at 55 (emphasis added).
Notably, his testimony that the Regional Finance account was not “charged off” contradicts the
September 2024 credit report and October 2025 credit report6 which reflect that a Regional Finance
5 The Individual submitted no tax returns to corroborate this testimony.
6 The Individual submitted, as documentary evidence, a one-page excerpt of a credit report dated October 2025. See
Ex. H at 12. I have determined this is an excerpt given that many of the outstanding delinquent debts are not listed.
6
account was charged off. Compare id. at 55 with Ex. H at 12 and Ex. 6 at 35. When asked to
explain this discrepancy between his testimony and his credit reports, the Individual’s answer
provided little clarification:
Yeah, there’s a couple of them [credit reports]. My . . . mother . . . pulled my report
from the [c]redit [u]nion as well, and there’s some that show charged off, and some
that show – don’t [sic] on two different credit reports. There’s even one there in
one of the exhibits that shows that it was charged off.
Tr. at 56. The above testimony acknowledges that a charged-off account with Regional Finance
shows up on various credit reports. I note that the Individual has another delinquent account—
Collections Account 4 for $4,959—that originated with Regional Finance, was assigned to
Jefferson Capital for collections, and has not yet been charged off. See Ex. 6 at 35. It is possible
that the Individual received information on paying Collections Account 4 and mistakenly assumed
that this information applied to Charged-Off Account 1.
Regarding Charged-Off Account 2 owed to World Finance, his September 2024 credit report
reflects the account was “assigned” in November 2019 with an original balance of $2,000. Ex. 6
at 36. As of the September 2024 credit report, the debt remained unpaid with a charged-off balance
of $3,035. Id. The Individual submitted a letter dated November 25, 2025, from Security Credit
Services, an assignee of World Finance. Ex. G at 10. The letter indicates that an account originally
held by World Finance “ha[d] been closed” evincing payment in full. Ex. G at 10. However, the
letter references an account number that does not match the account number of Charged-Off
Account 2. Compare Ex. G at 10 with Ex. 6 at 36. At the hearing, when asked about this
discrepancy, the Individual provided testimony that created further confusion. Tr. at 59–64
(testifying that he paid a different creditor with a similar name—World Acceptance—and that he
believed the World Acceptance debt and World Finance debt to be the same). Regardless of the
discrepancies in the account numbers and the creditor’s name, the Individual maintains in his
testimony that he paid and no longer owes for Charged-Off Account 2. Id. at 64–65. I decline to
credit this testimony given the lack of a clear record with respect to the account numbers and
confusion created by the creditor name.
Regarding Charged-Off Account 3 owed to the Federal Credit Union, the September 2024 credit
report reflects that the account was “assigned” in May 2022 with a balance of $43. Ex. 6 at 38.
The Individual testified that he originally financed a vehicle through the Federal Credit Union and
then “about two years ago” he refinanced his vehicle with a new financial intuition. Tr. at 52–53.
He further testified to receiv[ing] [an] e-mail a while back after [he] closed the account” with the
Federal Credit Union. Id. at 52. The Individual explained, “I guess there was a balance of $43 that
I wasn’t aware of” and that he intended to “pay that off . . . th[e] Friday” after the hearing. Id.
When asked why he allowed these accounts to be charged off, the Individual provided that he “was
younger and . . . made poor decisions . . . financially . . . .” Id. at 58. The Individual also cited to a
divorce and the death of his father which resulted in an extended period away from work, which
then in turn resulted in him “living beyond [his] means at that time.” Id. at 58–59. As stated above,
Compare e.g. id. at 12 (lacking any reference to Collections Account 1 still owed to Vance and Huffman) with Ex. 6
at 37 (September 2024 credit report referencing Collections Account 1 still owed to Vance and Huffman).
7
his father passed away in 2014. Id. at 58, 82–83. The Individual’s divorce took place in 2023. Ex.
7 at 78–79; Ex. 9 at 182–83.
c. Collections Accounts
The SSC references debts of $525 owed to both Vance and Huffman (Collections Account 1) and
Tempoe (Collections Account 2). Ex. 1 at 5. The Individual testified that the alleged debts owed
to these creditors concern the same debt. Tr. at 42–44, 65–66. Upon review of the Individual’s
September 2024 credit report, the debt associated with Vance and Huffman was originally owed
to Tempoe. Ex. 6 at 37 (“CREDITOR VANCEHUFFMAN . . . . ORIG CREDITOR: TEMPOE
LLC”) (formatting in original). Moreover, the two alleged debts are for the exact same sum. Id.
Accordingly, I find that the debts associated with Collections Accounts 1 and 2 are the same debt,
and that Vance and Huffman is the current creditor for that debt. At the hearing, the Individual
could not recall how he accrued the debt. However, he reiterated that he was “living beyond [his]
means at that point in time in [his] life.” Tr. at 66. The September 2024 credit report reflects that
account was assigned in December 2022. Ex. 6 at 37. As of the hearing date, no arrangements had
been made to pay the debt. Tr. at 66–67.
The SSC references Collections Account 3 with an outstanding balance of $6,000 and Collections
Account 4 with an outstanding balance of $4,959—both owed to Jefferson Capital. Ex. 1 at 5. The
Individual at the hearing testified that he believed Collections Account 3 and 4 to be the same
account. Tr. at 66–67. I also note that the September 2024 credit report listed no delinquent account
with Jefferson Capital for that specific $6,000 balance. See generally Ex. 6 at 33–63. Instead,
Collections Account 3 appears to have appeared in the SSC due to the Individual self-reporting in
his August 2024 QNSP and March 2025 LOI Response that he owed Jefferson Capital. See Ex. 5
at 23; Ex. 7 at 101. Because (1) the Individual appeared to be estimating an unspecific liability to
Jefferson Capital when self-disclosing a $6,000 delinquent debt; (2) the September 2024 credit
report fails to mention a specific $6,000 delinquent debt owed to Jefferson Capital; and (3) the
Individual testified that he believes Collections Accounts 3 and 4 are the same liability—I find
that the Individual does not have a delinquent account of $6,000 owed to Jefferson Capital. During
the hearing, the Individual could not recall the purpose behind the delinquent debt underlying
Collections Account 4 and testified that he had not made payments on this debt. Tr. at 67.
Regarding Collections Account 5, the September 2024 credit report lists a delinquent $1,925 debt,
currently owed to Jefferson Capital; originally owed to “AFFIRM / STUBHUB”; and assigned in
December 2022. Ex. 6 at 36 (formatting in original). Regarding Collections Account 6, the
September 2024 credit report reflects a delinquent debt owed directly to “AFFIRM INC” for $434
and “assigned” in July 2021. Id. at 37 (formatting in original). At the hearing, the Individual
explained that both Collections Accounts 5 and 6 resulted from two different debts incurred
through Affirm so he could take his child on a trip to see a football game. Tr. at 67–68. The
Individual explained that this was another “living beyond [his] means moment . . . .” Id. at 67. The
Individual made monthly payments on the debts for perhaps the first five or six months and then
“couldn’t continue paying it.” Id. at 67–68. As of the date of the hearing, he had not yet made any
arrangements with either Jefferson Capital or Affirm to pay off the debts associated with
Collections Accounts 5 or 6. Id. at 68.
8
Regarding Collections Account 7, the September 2024 credit report lists a delinquent $727 debt
owed to LVNV Funding; originally owed to Credit One Bank; and “assigned” in July 2023. Ex. 6
at 36. At the hearing, the Individual testified that the debt arose from a “credit card” that was
“probably” used on “everyday expenses.” Tr. at 68–69. As of the hearing date, the Individual had
not made payment arrangements. Id. at 69.
Regarding Collections Account 8, the September 2024 credit report lists a delinquent $696 debt
owed to Midland Credit Management; originally owed to Credit One Bank; and “assigned” in
September 2020. Ex. 6 at 36. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he called this creditor
after the November 2025 prehearing conference. Tr. at 69. The Individual indicated that the
creditor offered to settle this delinquent debt for $496. Id. The offer is “good [until] February
202[6][,]” and, as of the date of the hearing, the Individual had not made payments though he
“intend[ed] to.” Id. at 69–70.
Regarding Collections Account 9, the September 2024 credit report lists a delinquent $554 debt
owed to Jefferson Capital; originally owed to Victoria’s Secret; and assigned in May 2024. Ex. 6
at 37. The Individual explained “when [he] was married” this debt was taken out “under [his] name
. . . .” Tr. at 70. He took responsibility for the debt confirming that the debt is “under [his] name
and [his debt].” Id. However, as of the hearing date, the Individual had not made arrangements to
pay this debt. Id.
Regarding Collections Account 10, the September 2024 credit report lists a delinquent $516 debt
owed to Portfolio Recovery; originally owed to Capital One Bank; and assigned in July 2021. Ex.
6 at 37. The Individual testified that he originally owed $300. Tr. at 71. He further testified that,
during a phone call with a representative of the creditor, the representative told him that “if [he]
could pay the original amount up front[,] . . . they would take that . . . and clear [his] account.” Id.
at 71. As of the date of the hearing, the Individual had not paid this debt though he intended to
address this debt and his other outstanding debts in the future: “[A]fter the New Year[,] I intend to
. . . really tackle this with my [supplemental income] and pay these accounts off and . . . start
paying them.” Id.
d. Other Financial Information
The Individual testified that through his current financial institution he has received financial
counseling, “at least quarterly” since 2022:
I meet with them [ ] often[.] [W]e go over my credit report. They make a full
guideline of my monthly bills, living expenses, and then whatever’s left over from
those living expenses and my monthly bills, we put into an account to start working
towards these charge-offs and these credit accounts.
Id. at 72, 76. At the hearing, the Individual admitted that during this period he would incur new
financial obligations without consulting his financial counselor until after incurring the financial
obligation. Id. at 84–85. According to the Individual, when he told the financial counselor about
the new financial obligations, they would tell him he “probably shouldn’t have done that[.]” Id. at
84. The Individual also answered, “Yes” when asked if he had defaulted on loans or missed
9
payments while receiving financial counseling. Id. at 85. With respect to how the financial
counseling would help him address his outstanding financial obligations, the Individual indicated
that the counselor was “going to work on that budget for [him] and e-mail it to [him] so [he] could
follow that budget.” Id. at 73. The Individual indicated that his financial counselor also told him
to “call four [creditors] at a time” to ascertain settlement arrangements and to work on those debts
in batches. Id. at 70. The Individual explained that the four delinquent accounts he was working
on paying were owed to (1) the Federal Credit Union;7 (2) “Community Bank”;8 (3) Capital One;9
and (4) Jefferson Capital.10 Id. at 88.
At the hearing, the Individual indicated that, about a year before the hearing, he started earning
supplemental income through Door Dash and intended using that supplemental income to pay off
his outstanding liabilities. Id. at 73–74; see also id. at 21 (Witness 1’s testimony regarding the
Individual working with Door Dash). The Individual submitted documentation evincing that he
owed debts associated with two loans that he received through his current financial institution and
that, in October 2025, he paid off those loans in full. Ex. H at 11. At the hearing, the Individual
explained that he received a $10,000 inheritance from his grandparents, which he put towards
paying off these two loans. Tr. at 77–78. According to the Individual, this demonstrates he is not
“spending money foolishly anymore” and he now has more monthly income to spend towards his
delinquent debts. Id. The Individual also indicated that his spending habits changed “[v]astly” with
respect to “[g]oing out to eat” and “spending on things that [he] do[es not] need.” Id. at 75–76.
e. Character Evidence
The Individual submitted letters of support from two people who worked with the Individual. See
Ex. B at 2; Ex. C at 3. Both letters described him in complimentary terms. See Ex. B at 2 (“During
his time with [his employer, the Individual] has proven to be a reliable associate . . . . [H]e is honest
and trustworthy.”); Ex. C at 3 (“[The Individual] is honest, hard[-]working[,] and [a] reliable
employee.”). Similarly, Witnesses 1, 2, and 3 provided testimony as to the Individual’s positive
character. Tr. at 21–22 (Witness 1 describing the Individual as “reliable” and “dependable”), 29–
30 (Witness 2 describing the Individual as a “great mentor” and “great role model”), 39 (Witness
3 responding, “Absolutely” when asked if the Individual was a trustworthy person).
Regarding the Individual’s finances, Witnesses 1 and 2 testified that they associate with the
Individual outside of work and that they had not observed the Individual spending irresponsibly.
7 As stated above, the Individual testified that he has not actually paid the Federal Credit Union and that it was his
intention to pay it off on the Friday after the hearing. Tr. at 52.
8 The SSC makes no reference to an outstanding liability owed to a “Community Bank.” Ex. 1 at 5. The Individual
also provided no further context for the debt owed to “Community Bank.” See generally Tr. at 87–88.
9 As stated above, the Individual testified that he has not actually paid the creditor who purchased the Capital One
debt and that he intended to pay after the new year. Tr. at 71.
10 It is unclear to which debt the Individual’s testimony referred since the SSC lists several delinquent debts owed to
Jefferson Capital. Ex. 1 at 5. Furthermore, the Individual’s testimony creates further confusion, since he asserted at
the hearing that the letter from Security Credit Services evinced payment of the debt owed to Jefferson Capital. Tr. at
88–89 (citing Ex. G at 10). Confusingly, Security Credit Services was the assignee of World Finance and lacks any
reference to Jefferson Capital. Ex. G at 10.
10
Id. at 18, 31. Witness 1 indicated that the Individual only appeared to have been concerned over
finances to the extent that all people are concerned “unless you’re a millionaire.” Id. at 18. Witness
3 had no testimony directly probative of the financial concerns at issue. Id. at 38 (indicating he had
no information about the Individual’s finances or financial situation).
V. ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, I found above that the $525 debt owed to Vance and Huffman (Collections
Account 1) was the same $525 debt owed to Tempoe (Collections Account 2), and that Vance and
Huffman was the current creditor of that debt. See supra Sec. IV(c). Accordingly, Collections
Account 2 no longer raises a security concern under Guideline F. Furthermore, with respect to
Collections Account 3, I found that the Individual does not have a delinquent account of $6,000
owed to Jefferson Capital. Id. Accordingly, Collections Account 3 no longer raises a security
concern.
Notwithstanding the findings on Collections Accounts 2 and 3, there remain outstanding security
concerns with respect to Guideline F. Conditions that could mitigate a security concern 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 judgment;
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . 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 . . . ; 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;
(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.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), one of the behaviors at issue here is a prolonged failure to file
tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The other
behavior at issue is his failure to pay debts, resulting in three Charged-Off accounts, amounting to
11
over $9,000 in delinquent debt, and eight other accounts in collections, amounting to over $10,000
in delinquent debt. I consider mitigating condition (a) as it applies to both behaviors.
With respect to the late filing of tax returns, I cannot find that the behavior occurred “so long ago”
when the Individual claims he only mailed his outstanding tax returns to the IRS and state tax
authority less than a month before the hearing See supra Sec. IV(a). I also cannot find the behavior
“infrequent” or “unlikely to recur.” The Individual frequently failed to file his tax returns over nine
tax years. Furthermore, the Individual filing one year’s tax returns timely has less probative value
than his nine-year pattern of non-filing when determining the likelihood of recurrence. The
Individual provided little else to demonstrate that his failure to file tax returns was unlikely to
recur.
With respect to the delinquent debts, the Individual testified that ten of the eleven delinquent
accounts remain outstanding and that no payment arrangements have been made. Though the
Individual testified to paying off Charged-Off Account 2 associated with World Finance, as stated
above in Section IV(b), I decline to find that the Individual has paid off this debt given
inconsistencies in the account number and creditor’s name in the record. I cannot find the
delinquent debts to have “occurred so long ago” or “to be unlikely to recur” where the eleven debts
remain actively overdue and unpaid. I also cannot find the debts “infrequent”—given the number
of accounts that have become delinquent since the “assignment” of the first collections account in
2019. The delinquent accounts have remained overdue every day over several years. Mitigating
condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), I have some testimony that the conditions that resulted in the
Individual’s financial problems may have been “beyond [his] control.” In particular, the Individual
cited the birth of his daughter in 2012, his father’s passing in 2014, a period away from work, and
associated financial hardships. While I am sympathetic, some of these events, like his father’s
passing in 2014, occurred well over a decade ago, attenuating the relationship between the cited
conditions and his current financial status. The Individual also noted at various points that he was
spending beyond his means, suggesting that his financial situation was in his control.
Even assuming for argument’s sake that I were to credit that there were circumstances “beyond
[his] control” that caused the financial hardships—a finding that I am not making—the Individual
continued making no headway in resolving these financial issues until after he applied for access
authorization in August 2024. The Individual admitted to knowing that he had an obligation to file
tax returns annually yet took no action for over nine tax years. The Individual also admitted that,
despite receiving financial counseling in 2022, he continued to miss payments and default on debts.
Again, he also admitted to spending beyond his means—at one point taking out types of credit to
attend a football game. Tax returns were not mailed for filing until November 2025, and I have
found all the cited delinquent debts remaining outstanding. Given the delay and the lack of actions
taken, I simply cannot find that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. Mitigating condition
(b) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), the Individual testified that he receives financial counseling
through his federal credit union. However, I have no clear indication that the problem is being
resolved or under control. Despite the Individual receiving counseling since 2022, the record
12
clearly reflects that the delinquencies and defaults largely continued and remained unaddressed
even as of the date of the hearing. The Individual has, at most, only received pay-off amounts from
a few of the creditors. He has not actually paid the creditors off.11 Furthermore, the Individual
indicated that he and his counselor would create a budget to address these debts. While admirable,
this functions as an admission that the Individual has not budgeted to resolve the various delinquent
debts or to bring them under control. Mitigating condition (c) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual testified that he paid off Charged-Off Account
2, which I cannot credit given the record’s inconsistencies in the account numbers and creditor
name. Furthermore, he admitted all other delinquent accounts remain outstanding. The Individual
indicated that he has initiated conversations with a few of the creditors to ascertain pay-off
amounts; however, I cannot find that he “initiated and is adhering to [ ] good-faith effort[s] to
repay” given the lack of substantive steps taken, such as enrollment in a payment plan or, better
yet, making payments. Mitigating condition (d) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (e), the Individual does not challenge the validity of the past-due
debts cited in the SSC. Mitigating condition (e) does not apply.
Mitigating condition (f) does not apply, as the SSC raised no concerns regarding unexplained
affluence.
Regarding mitigating condition (g), the tax years at issue here range from 2015 to 2023. The
Individual testified that he consulted a tax preparer for assistance with filing tax returns and
provided mailing receipts demonstrating that documents were mailed to the IRS and state tax
authority. However, the tax preparer’s letter only mentions tax years 2015 to 2022. Furthermore,
I have no documentary evidence demonstrating that the IRS or the state tax authority received any
tax returns, accepted the tax returns as properly filed, and confirmed the Individual’s tax liability.
The Individual has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that he has filed or made
arrangements to file all tax returns for the tax years at issue or made arrangements to pay any past
due taxes. Mitigating condition (g) does not apply.
As such, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline
F.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised 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.
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.
11 As stated at various points, I have not credited that he has paid off Charged Off Account 2, owed to World Finance.
Even then, this mitigating condition would not apply given the lack of application to other outstanding debts.
13
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals