PSH-25-0164

*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: June 9, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0164
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 10, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 3 at 1–2. In June 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (2023 QNSP). Ex. 10 at 66. In her 2023 QNSP, the Individual reported
fifteen delinquent debts. Id. at 49–62. In August 2023, she underwent an enhanced subject
interview (ESI). Id. at 70. During the ESI, the investigator asked the Individual about several debts
that were delinquent and on her credit report but not listed in her 2023 QNSP or were listed on her
2023 QNSP under a different name. Id. at 76–86. As a result of the Individual’s debts, the Local
Security Office (LSO) issued the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (2024 LOI), which the
Individual completed in April 2024. Ex. 11. The Individual had previously been asked about her
delinquent debts in connection with her eligibility for a security clearance when she was employed
by a different DOE contractor around 2019. Ex. 16. At that time, she told DOE that she planned
to resolve her debts using a debt consolidation program. Ex. 18.
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 -
After the Individual completed the 2024 LOI, the LSO subsequently issued the Individual a
Notification Letter advising her that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt
regarding her eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 3 at 1–2. In a Summary of Security Concerns
(SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security
concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 4–10.
The Individual exercised her right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 5. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted twenty-one exhibits (Ex. 1–21). The Individual submitted twenty exhibits (Ex. A–T).
The Individual testified on her own behalf, and no other witnesses were called. Hearing Transcript,
OHA Case No. PSH-25-0164 (Tr.).
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline F, under which the LSO raised security concerns, relates to security risks arising from
financial concerns. “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 may raise a security concern include: “inability to satisfy debts,” “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” and “consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or
irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative
cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators.”
Id. at ¶ 19(a), (c), (e). In citing Guideline F, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s delinquent debts,
her admission that she had been living beyond her means, her repeated use of short-term loans,
and her history of failing to meet her financial obligations.2 Ex. 1 at 3. The information cited by
the LSO justifies its invocation of Guideline F. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 19(a), (c), (e).
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
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
2 The SSC contains allegations A through Q. Ex. 3. Allegations E, H, K, N, and O all state facts about the Individual’s
financial situation, but those facts do not in themselves raise security concerns. I consider those facts in my analysis
to the extent that they have some relation to the Individual’s “inability to satisfy debts,” “history of not meeting
financial obligations,” and “consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which
may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-
payment, or other negative financial indicators.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 19(a), (c), (e). However, those
allegations do not raise discrete security concerns, and I do not consider them as such.
- 3 -
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). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting their 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. Id. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Around 2016, the Individual enrolled in Debt Relief Program A (Program A) because she was “in
over her head with the amount of money she owed.” Ex. 13 at 74. Program A encouraged her to
allow her credit accounts to become delinquent so that they could “begin to take action.” Id. At
some point in this process, the Individual’s delinquent accounts began to show up on her credit
report as “charged-off.” Id. Subsequently, the Individual decided to leave Program A for Debt
Relief Program B (Program B) in 2018. Id. Around 2019, the Individual decided that she was going
to leave Program B because she did not feel they had taken any action to improve her finances. Id.
In 2019, the Individual’s wages were garnished in order to cover two separate debts. Ex. 14; Ex.
15. The Individual testified that those debts were resolved shortly after the garnishment started.
Tr. at 62.
In 2019, the Individual was employed by a different DOE contractor in a position that required her
to hold an access authorization. Id. at 17. At that time, she held an access authorization and was
undergoing a routine reinvestigation. Id. at 18. In a QNSP completed in November 2019 (2019
QNSP), the Individual reported that she had approximately $70,000 in delinquent debts. Ex. 13 at
47–59. As a result of that reinvestigation, the Individual signed a form indicating that she agreed
to provide DOE with proof of her enrollment in a debt consolidation program as well as a copy of
the payment schedule for that program. Tr. at 17; Ex. 17. The Individual did not enroll in any debt
consolidation program at that time. Tr. at 18. At the hearing, the Individual testified that she did
not enroll in a program at that time because enrolling in Program A and Program B had ruined her
credit, which she said had caused her poor financial situation at the time of the reinvestigation. Id.
When the Individual started her current job she filled out her 2023 QNSP, and she reported that
she had approximately $77,000 in delinquent debt owed to fifteen creditors. Ex. 10 at 48–61; see
also Tr. at 53–54 (when asked what she had purchased to cause her debts, the Individual explained
most of her debts were credit cards). All of the delinquent accounts listed on the Individual’s 2019
QNSP were also listed on her 2023 QNSP. Compare Ex. 13 at 47–59 with Ex. 10 at 48–61. A
credit report that was pulled after the Individual completed her 2023 QNSP showed that she had
twenty collection accounts with a total balance of approximately $81,000. Ex. 10 at 113–36. The
Individual testified that at the time of the hearing, her gross annual income was approximately
$160,000– about $70,000 higher than her gross annual income in her previous position. Tr. at 21.
- 4 -
A credit report from May 2025 showed that the Individual had opened sixteen new loan accounts
in 2024 and 2025. Ex. 12. All of these loan accounts were in good standing, but the report indicated
that the Individual took out eight short term loans in 2024 and the first half of 2025. Id. When
asked why she kept taking out short term loans, the Individual explained that in her current job she
is paid on a monthly basis. Tr. at 50. In previous positions, she had been paid every two weeks. Id.
Because of this change, the Individual struggled to make ends meet near the end of some months.
Id. at 50–51.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that she “made some very poor decisions in [her] thirties”
that led to her financial issues. Tr. at 15. The Individual was in her forties at the time of the hearing.
Ex. 10 at 15. She acknowledged that she did not handle her finances well and that she “need[s] to
fix it.” Tr. at 16. At the time of the hearing, the Individual had completed three out of four sessions
of a financial planning class with the final class to be completed later that week. Id. at 22–23; Ex.
H; Ex. I; Ex. S (certificate showing the Individual had completed the course). The class is run by
a nonprofit company that helps people to learn to manage their finances and to budget so that they
can eventually buy a house. Tr. at 23. The class also includes credit counseling services that people
can use after they complete the class. Id. The Individual explained that she does not have plans to
buy a house right now, but she believes that the class will help her to learn better money habits
and gain the tools she needs to buy a house someday. Id. at 24. She said that the program had made
her more conscious of where and when she is spending money. Id. at 60. The Individual also used
a financial counseling service offered by her employee assistance program (EAP). Id. at 27; Ex.
L; Ex. M. Through the EAP financial counseling service, the Individual had a one-on-one phone
call with a financial counselor who helped her to create a budget plan. Tr. at 28. According to the
budget she created as a part of this plan in June 2025, after paying for housing expenses, living
expenses, and debts, the Individual should have approximately $1,800 left over each month. Ex. L
at 4. At the time of the hearing, the Individual was unsure where this money was being spent each
month and said that she was hoping that when she used the credit counseling from her financial
planning class, they would be able to help her figure it out. Tr. at 38 (“So that – that’s part of the
problem, right, is figuring out where my money’s going.”). She theorized that that money went to
purchases on Amazon, buying gifts for friends and family, and eating out. Id.
The Individual also signed a contract to retain the services of a debt consolidation company. Ex P;
Ex. Q. The debt consolidation company consolidated “three or four” of her debts, for which it will
negotiate with the creditors to help her pay off the debts. Tr. at 41. The Individual will pay money
into a dedicated savings account that the debt consolidation company can then use to pay her debts.
Id. At the time of the hearing, the Individual had not yet started to pay into the dedicated savings
account. Id. at 42. The Individual likes this program because it will help her deal with debts that
are already harming her credit while allowing her to continue routine payments on debts that are
currently in good standing. Id. When asked why she had not had the debt consolidation company
consolidate more of her debts, the Individual said that she did not want to do that because it was
her understanding that doing so would require allowing those debts to go into default which would
harm her credit. Id. at 55.
The Individual provided documentation that she had resolved six of her debts after her credit report
was pulled in 2023. Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D; Ex. F; Ex. G. When asked about the debts that she
- 5 -
had not paid off and were not covered by her agreement with the debt consolidation company, the
Individual said she was still working on a plan to resolve those debts. Tr. at 66. She explained that
she is hoping that the counseling service related to her financial planning classes will be able to
help her to negotiate a deal with those creditors on that debt. Id.
The Individual said she could be relied on to follow through in dealing with her debts now because
she has a higher income and better financial management skills that she learned through her
counseling. Id. at 59. She also said the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated her issues and that she
would be more successful in resolving her debts without that challenge. Id. She said that the
COVID-19 pandemic made it so she could not get a second job, but did not otherwise identify how
it affected her ability to pay her debts. Id. The Individual testified that she did not plan on getting
more credit cards or loans in the future. Id. at 56.
V. ANALYSIS
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F through the following
conditions:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or 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 (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected
medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by
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 action to solve the
issue;
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal form or income; and
(g) the individual made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or
pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
- 6 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
1. Remaining Delinquent Debts and History of Failure to Meet Financial Obligations
As the Individual has several delinquent debts that have not been satisfied and have been in
delinquent status for several years, I cannot say that the irresponsible behavior was so long ago,
infrequent, or happened under unusual circumstances. Therefore, mitigating factor (a) does not
apply.
In her own testimony, the Individual admitted that her debts were due to poor financial decisions
rather than any specific condition that was beyond her control. While she did testify that the
COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for her to find a second job to help pay off her debts, her
salary increased significantly in the interim, and she still has several delinquent debts. Therefore,
mitigating factor (b) does not apply.
The Individual provided evidence that she had completed a financial planning course from a
credible source and was using the skills that she had learned in that course to improve her financial
situation. However, at the time of the hearing, the Individual still had several delinquent debts that
had not been satisfied, and although she had engaged a debt consolidation company to consolidate
some of those debts, she had not yet begun to make any payments and she did not have a clear
plan to settle the remaining delinquent debts. As such, I cannot say that “there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control.” Therefore, mitigating factor (c) is
inapplicable.
As noted above, the Individual has resolved several of her delinquent debts, and she has engaged
a debt consolidation company to resolve a few more. However, the Individual had not made any
payments towards satisfying those debts as of the hearing, and she still has several debts where
she owes an outstanding balance and does not have a concrete plan to resolve the debt. Because
she has not shown she has initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to resolve these debts,
she has not mitigated the security concern pursuant to mitigating factor (d).
Mitigating factor (e), mitigating factor (f), and mitigating factor (g) do not apply to the allegations
here because the Individual did not dispute the debt, did not come into any unexplained affluence,
and was not alleged to have failed to file her taxes.
Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns related to her delinquent debts or
her history of failure to meet her financial obligations.
2. Living Beyond Her Means
While the Individual has shown that she has taken several steps to attempt to learn to live within
her means, she has not demonstrated that she has implemented the advice and lessons she has
received. At the time of the hearing, the Individual could not present a clear picture of where her
income was going each month and did not provide any indication she was using the budgets that
had been created for her. While she mentioned that the classes and counseling she has undergone
- 7 -
had made her more conscious of her spending, she did not articulate any concrete changes she has
made in her life to improve her financial situation.
Mitigating factor (a) does not apply here because of the long term and ongoing nature of the
Individual’s inability to live within her means.
The Individual did not testify that any of her monthly spending was beyond her control. Her
testimony that the COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for her to get a second job does not
explain why her spending was significantly higher than her income. Therefore, mitigating factor
(b) does not apply.
Without some kind of evidence that the Individual has implemented the advice that she has
received from her classes and credit counseling, I cannot say that the Individual has shown that
her ability to live within her means is under control. Therefore, the security concerns have not been
mitigated pursuant to mitigating condition (c).
Mitigating factor (d), mitigating factor (e), mitigating factor (f), and mitigating factor (g) do not
apply to the allegations here because these concerns are not about debt, the Individual did not come
into any unexplained affluence, and she was not alleged to have failed to file her taxes.
The Individual has not resolved the security concerns related to the allegation that she has been
living beyond her means.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted 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 be not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Erin C. Weinstock
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals