PSH-25-0207

United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: September 10, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0207
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 7, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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
restored.
I. Background
As part of the access authorization application process, the Individual signed and submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in September 2015. Exhibit (Ex.) 4 at 145.
During the course of the investigation, a copy of the Individual’s credit report was obtained in
November 2015. Id. at 167. The credit report revealed several accounts that had been placed for
collection. Id. One account, totaling $27 was reported to the credit reporting agency in August
2015. Id. Another account totaling $1,648 was reported in November 2015. Id. One account that
had been charged off had a balance of $493 and was reported in November 2015. Id. at 168.
Another account with a $0 balance that had been transferred or sold, was reported in July 2015.
Id. An account with a balance of $132 that was reported in October 2015 was past due 120 days,
and an account with a balance of $385 that was reported in November 2015 was also past due 120
days. Id. at 169. Another account with a balance of $855 that was reported in October 2015 was
120 days past due twice. Id. Also reported in October 2015 was an account in the amount of $1,019
and past due 120 days. Id. at 170. In November 2015 an account was reported 150 days past due,
twice. Id.
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 Individual received his access authorization in 2015. Beginning in August 2017, the
Individual’s wages were garnished by a federal agency, for an amount of $2,456.13 due. Ex. 13.
The wage garnishment was terminated in February 2018. Ex. 12.
As part of the reinvestigation process, the Individual signed and completed another QNSP in May
2024. Ex. 4. When asked about delinquencies involving routine accounts in the last seven years,
the Individual listed several delinquent accounts. Id. at 58–60. The Individual listed one delinquent
account in the amount of $1,697. Id. at 58. He indicated that the delinquency was the result of
financial hardship “due to [his] wife’s premature exit [from the] military due to health concerns
and [the] relocation of [his] family.” Id. He also stated that the delinquency was under control, as
he “[s]ought help from a financial assistance company” and was on a “plan to resolve all debt in a
timely manner.” Id. He also disclosed that, for the same reasons, he had a “financial issue” in the
amount of $24,000, a debt associated with a personal car. Id. at 59. The debt was resolved around
2018 with the help of the aforementioned financial institution. Id. The Individual also owed an
estimated $17,000 on another car, which was sold in an auction around November 2023 to satisfy
the outstanding amount. Id. at 60. When asked if he was “over 120 days delinquent on any debt[,]”
the Individual marked “no.” Id. at 61.
The Individual subsequently underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) conducted by an
investigator in late June 2024. Id. at 63. The investigator noted in the report that the Individual
“verified his responses to the financial section and was given the opportunity to provide additional
information but did not.” Id. at 70. The investigator confronted the Individual with five financial
accounts that were in collection or charge off status and/or settled for less than the full balance,
totaling approximately $21,042, which the Individual had not disclosed on the 2024 QNSP. Id. at
70. The Individual explained that “his current financial situation was good” and that the
“delinquent debts resulted from getting out of the military and not being prepared and not having
a job in place.” Id. at 71. He further stated that an “unforeseen issue that resulted in [his] wife’s
exiting the military, which resulted in a one income family,” contributed to the debts falling into
delinquency. Id. He explained that he would get in touch with the creditors to satisfy the delinquent
accounts. Id.
As questions remained, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter
of Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual submitted in January 2025. Ex. 10; Ex. 11. In his LOI
response, the Individual indicated that he had a car loan in the amount of $25,606 that was in
repossession status and became delinquent in March 2020. Ex. 11 at 280. A repossession sale
“satisfied [the] remaining balance.” Id. An updated credit report was obtained as part of the
investigation in March 2025. Ex. 9. The credit report revealed three accounts on which the
Individual owed a cumulative amount of $7,673 that had been placed for collection. Id. at 264–65.
The credit report indicates that all three accounts were reported to the credit reporting agency in
March 2023. Id. The first account had a balance of $4,146, the second had a balance of $2,013,
and the third had a balance of $1,514. Id. An account in the amount of $12,000, which was reported
in October 2022, was transferred or sold. Id. at 265. An account in the amount of $673, which was
reported in April 2024, was paid after being settled for the less than the full balance. Id. The
Individual also had several student loans that were 120 days past due in February 2025, with past
due amounts totaling $2,547, and a total balance of $59,340. Id. at 266–68. The credit report also
3
indicated that a mortgage was 90 days past due in January 2025 with a past due amount of $6,346,
and a car loan was sixty days past due in February 2025 with a past due amount of $1,275. Id. at
268.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E
(Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 2. The Notification Letter informed the
Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. 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 Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his wife. See Transcript of Hearing,
OHA Case No. PSH-25-0207 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”) The Individual also submitted seven
exhibits, marked Exhibits A through G. The DOE Counsel submitted thirteen exhibits marked as
Exhibits 1 through 13.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline F
Guideline F provides that 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. Among
those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise disqualifying security
concerns are “[the] inability to satisfy debts[,]” and “a history of not meeting financial
obligations[.]” Id. at ¶ 19(a), (c). The LSO alleged that a March 2025 credit report revealed that
the Individual had three accounts in collection totaling $7,673. Ex. 2 at 6. The LSO also cited an
account in the amount of $12,000 that fell into delinquency.2 Id. at 7. The Individual had seven
student loan accounts that were “120 days past due, with a total balance of $59,340 and a total past
due amount of $2,547.” Id. at 7. Further, the Individual was ninety days past due on a mortgage
with a past due amount of $6,346 and sixty days past due on an automobile loan in the amount of
$1,275, and, in the January 2025 LOI response, the Individual “failed to provide documentation
that he is resolving his debts[.]” Id. at 7–8. As indicated above, the LSO alleged that the Individual
has a history of not fulfilling financial obligations. Specifically regarding this concern, the LSO
cited:
1. An account in the amount of $25,606 that was in foreclosure or repossession status became
delinquent in March 2020. Id. at 8. The obligation was satisfied. Id.
2 Although the Individual indicated that he had initiated a payment plan to satisfy the debt in his LOI, the Individual
admitted during the hearing that he had not done so. See infra p. 7.
4
2. A charge off account that became delinquent in 2017, in the amount of $673, which the
Individual paid. Id.
3. A collection account that was reported in August 2015 had a balance of $27. Id.
4. A “collection account reported in November 2015” had a balance of $1,648. Id.
5. A “charge off account reported in November 2015” had a balance of $493. Id.
6. A charge off account that was reported in July 2015 “was transferred/sold.” Id.
7. An account reported in October 2015 was past due 120 days “with a past due balance of
$132[.]” Id.
8. An account reported in November 2015 was 120 days past due with a past due balance of
$385. Id.
9. A past due account reported in October 2015 had a past due balance of $855. Id.
10. An account reported in October 2015 was 120 days past due with a past due balance of
$1,019. Id.
11. An account that was reported twice in November 2015 was past due 150 days. Id.
12. “A wage garnishment was filed against [the Individual]” in August 2017 by a federal
agency. Id. The garnishment was released in February 2018. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline F is justified.
Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying concern is the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire[,]” and “deliberately . . . concealing or omitting
information, concerning relevant facts to an . . . investigator[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(a)‒(b). Under Guideline
E, the LSO alleged that the Individual failed to disclose all delinquent financial accounts on his
2024 QNSP, and he did not voluntarily disclose this information to the investigator during the ESI
prior to being confronted with the information. Ex. 2 at 10. Further, the Individual did not report
to the LSO fourteen accounts that “were 120 or more days delinquent[,]” as indicated in a late
March 2025 credit report within three working days of the debts falling into delinquency.3 Id. The
LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
3 Cleared individuals are required to disclose financial anomalies, including “[d]elinquency more than 120 days on
any debt,” within three working days of the event. DOE Order 472.2A at ¶ 4(w)(5), Att. 5 (Jun. 10, 2022).
5
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 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. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
The January 2025 LOI asked the Individual to provide information regarding his delinquent
accounts. Ex. 11. Regarding all of the aforementioned accounts, the Individual stated that he was
“unable to satisfy [his] debts as originally agreed to with the creditor” due to financial hardship,
and that he failed to disclose the debts on his QNSP because of “inadequate records[.]” Id. at 273,
279–81 He also explained that he “[was not] concerned of the impact.” Id.. Specifically, regarding
the debt that had been placed in collection totaling $12,000, the Individual indicated that the
documentation regarding the satisfaction of the debt had been attached to the LOI.4 Id. at 279. The
Individual also indicated in the LOI response that he had “[e]stablished a settlement and payment
plan in January 2024” for the account totaling $12,000, and that he was “current on all payments.”
Id. at 285.
At the start of the hearing, the Individual indicated that one of his “collateral duties is processing
clearances for [his] local community partners that get a clearance to . . . work[] with [them.]” Tr.
at 18. Regarding the omissions on his most recent QNSP, the Individual was asked if he
remembered being interviewed by the investigator, and he indicated that he did and he confirmed
that he was asked to verify information in his QNSP. Id. at 20–22. He also confirmed that he was
given the opportunity to disclose information after the information he provided in the QNSP was
reviewed with him. Id. at 23. The Individual confirmed in his testimony that he agreed with the
debts with which the investigator confronted him. Id. Regarding why he had failed to disclose
4 The LOI does not contain the aforementioned documentation. Ex. 11.
6
those debts on his QNSP, the Individual offered inconsistent explanations. He indicated that,
because a few of the debts had been charged off, he did not “have documentation and current
information regarding” those debts when he completed the QNSP and believed he “had listed
everything at that current time,” but also stated that “he was under the belief” that the information
relevant to the QNSP pertained to “a certain time frame” and that he “may have been
misunderstanding the time frame of the items that were being looked for in the financial
obligation.” Id. at 23‒24.
The Individual was also specifically asked why he indicated in his LOI that he “[was not]
concerned of the impact” when responding to the question asking him to explain why he had
omitted information from the QNSP. Id. at 31–32. The Individual responded that he indicated that
he was not “concerned of the impact,” because he was “working to resolve it and facilitate the
funds to be able to make the payments.” Id. at 32. He indicated that he believes that he meant that
he was not “concerned with the ability to resolve” the debts. Id. When asked whether he
acknowledged that he has “an obligation to report debts that come more than 120 days delinquent”
to the LSO, the Individual indicated that he does not “know that specifically.” Id. at 39.
When asked how much he was earning before he stopped working in the months prior to the
hearing, the Individual stated that he was earning approximately $2,200 “every two weeks” and
receives $1,800 per month in veteran’s benefits. Id. at 65–66. When asked how much his wife
currently earns, he stated that his wife earns about $2,400 per month and also receives $1,800
monthly in veteran’s benefits. 5 Id. at 66. At the hearing, the Individual did not know how much
they have every month after all necessary bills and expenditures are satisfied, and he admitted that
he had not formulated a personal financial statement since entering into payment plans for some
of his delinquent debts earlier this year. Id. at 56–57, 66. Regarding the three accounts in collection
totaling $7,673, the Individual established a payment plan for one of the accounts totaling $4,146.
Tr. at 34; Ex. B. The Individual made the first payment in the amount of $100 in early October
2025. Ex. B. The Individual entered into a payment plan for the second of these accounts, totaling
$2,013. Tr. at 35. Pursuant to the payment agreement, the Individual has agreed to pay $225 every
month. Ex. C. The Individual also made one lump sum payment on the account in early October
2025 in the amount of $749.99. Ex. C; Tr. at 35. Regarding the third account totaling $1,514, the
Individual submitted a September 2025 letter indicating that the account was settled. Tr. at 35; Ex.
D. The Individual explained in his testimony that he had previously been making payments on
these accounts via older payment arrangements, but that they could not maintain making payments
pursuant to the arrangements. Tr. at 35. The initial payment arrangements were made in early 2025.
Id. at 60. They could not maintain making payments pursuant to those previous payment
arrangements as they “[g]ot bogged down with a lot of extracurricular items, as far as school and
sports for the kids[.]” Id. at 61. He indicated that he “would [have] love[d]” for those prior
arrangements to have continued, “so it [does not] look like [he] just kind of scraped something
together[.]” Id.
5 The Individual’s wife worked at a restaurant for approximately six to eight months “before [they] moved . . . in
2015.” Tr. at 62. She then was out of work until “a year or two” before the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. She then stopped
working after the COVID-19 pandemic struck and stayed out of work until 2023. Id. Although their financial situation
improved, it worsened again in 2024. Id. at 62–63. When asked why, the Individual could not pinpoint a reason. Id. at
63.
7
The Individual testified that the account totaling $12,000 had become the “bane of [his]
existence[,]” as he is not able to get in touch with the creditor to attempt to resolve the matter. Id.
at 36. The Individual stated that the creditor does not have an online presence but does have a
phone number that he has called multiple times. Id. He has left messages but has not received a
return call. Id. The creditor has also not made any attempts to collect this outstanding amount. Id.
at 38. The Individual’s testimony regarding this account was markedly different from the
information he provided in the 2024 LOI, where he claimed he had already created a payment plan
with the creditor to satisfy this debt. See Ex. 11 at 279.
Regarding his student loan debt, the Individual indicated that he is making payments on the loans
and that they are “paid up.” Id. at 40. A printout of the account information indicates that his next
payment is due in late October 2025 and lists the past due amount as $0. Ex. F; Tr. at 41. Regarding
his mortgage, which was listed in the SSC as being 90 days past due in the amount of $6,346, the
Individual testified that he is now “current” on the account. Tr. at 42. He described his monthly
mortgage payment as a “priority payment.” Id. He also submitted a printout of his posted mortgage
payments from early October 2025, indicating that his last payment was in mid-September 2025.
Ex. E. He indicated that his mortgage became 90 days past due as the family was “struggling a
little bit as far as a few things coming out that [were not] supposed to at that time” and accordingly,
they “lost a hold of . . . where the funds were going[.]”6 Tr. at 42–43. They became current on the
mortgage in May 2025. Id. at 63. The Individual testified that his car loan payment is also current
and submitted online payment information indicating that he paid the creditor $745.99 in early
October 2025.7 Tr. at 43; Ex. G. The Individual indicated that there are “fluctuations of missed
payment[s]” on their car payments. Tr. at 65. Prior to the October 2025 payment, the Individual
made one car payment in September 2025, no payment in August 2025, one payment in July 2025,
two payments in June 2025, no payment in May 2025, one payment in April 2025, two payments
in March 2025, no payment in February 2025, and one payment in January 2025. Ex. G.
In terms of his past history of delinquent accounts, listed above as concerns one through twelve
under Guideline F, the Individual testified that some were satisfied, he acknowledged that all were
past due, and he disputed owing one. Tr. at 45–51. Specifically, he disputed owing the debt totaling
$27 from 2015, indicating that it pertained to a truck he had sold, but he received a ticket because
the new owner failed to register the car in a timely manner. Id. at 46. The Individual acknowledged
that he experienced financial difficulties in the past, and when he was asked whether he received
any financial advice/services in the past, the Individual indicated that his wife handles the family
finances and that she enjoys learning about and organizing their finances.8 Id. at 53–55. The
6 The Individual’s wife stated that they fell behind on their mortgage and car payments because of the increase in the
cost of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tr. at 93–95. Around the end of 2023, when they fell behind on their
mortgage payments, she realized that one income was not enough to sustain the family, and accordingly, she found a
job. Id. at 93, 95. They used their refund from tax year 2024 to come current on their mortgage and car payments. Id.
at 94–95.
7 The Individual was asked about previously repossessed vehicles, and he admitted that he had two repossessed. Id. at
45.
8 The Individual testified that the financial difficulties in 2015 began when he decided not to reenlist in the armed
services at a time when they were not in good financial standing. Tr. at 67–68. He stated that after he decided not to
reenlist, they “were not in any good sort of financial standing[.]” Id. at 68. Specifically, they “had nowhere to live[,]”
they “had no jobs[,]” and they “had nowhere to go when [they] moved back” to the state in which they currently reside.
Id. at 68, 78
8
Individual indicated that the family has a budget and a binder of information “that lays it all out.”
Id. at 56. When asked whether he had formulated a recent “financial statement to indicate what
[his] bills are and what [his] income is[,]” the Individual indicated that he had not, but that his wife
may have. Id. at 57. Although they communicate about finances, his wife has “really taken hold
of” the finances. Id. at 57–58. Although the Individual was able to provide testimony regarding
how much each spouse earns every month, he could not provide testimony regarding how much
income remains after bills and necessary expenses are paid. Id. at 66. They did consider filing for
bankruptcy at some point, and they did discuss the matter with a financial advisor, but the financial
counseling “[was not] . . . anything . . . steady.” Id. at 62.
The Individual’s wife confirmed in her testimony that she is primarily responsible for handling “a
lot of the finances for the family.” Id. at 75. She testified that the Individual “is aware” of the
routine monthly expenses and “costs that come up,” but she is responsible for “allocating what
money needs to go where[.]” Id. at 76. She seeks input from the Individual for larger expenses. Id.
She confirmed that since she left the military, there have been times during which they have had
to decide between bills and expenses, acknowledging that some bills had to go unpaid. Id. at 76–
77. She indicated that their first major financial hurdle came when the Individual decided against
reenlisting in the military, and they moved to a different state to be closer to family around the
same time. Id. at 77–78. Then when their children had to stay home from school during the
COVID-19 pandemic, she stopped working to stay at home with their children. Id. at 78–79. The
Individual’s wife testified that it was around this time that her financial illiteracy became apparent,
so she decided to utilize financial tools and to educate herself.9 Id. at 79–80, 87. When she started
work at her new job, they were focused on “getting back on track with any past due bills[.]” Id. at
82. After the Individual’s wife secured employment in 2023 and they paid their past due bills, she
began reaching out to collection agencies and, by mid-2024, she had established payment plans
for several of their delinquent accounts. Id. at 82. Her goal was to have all outstanding debts “on
a payment plan or paid off by the end of this year.” Id. at 83. She admitted that, to date, she has
not been able to establish a payment plan for one account, and due to “a few obstacles most recently
in the past couple of months[,]” they could not make payments pursuant to some of those payment
plans. Id. at 83. The Individual’s wife explained that they have had some maintenance challenges
with their house in the months prior to the hearing, as well as some unexpected veterinary bills,
and because they had some emergency funds established, they could handle some of those
expenses. Id. at 84. However, as the Individual has not been working and earning money in the
months prior to the hearing, the family’s financial situation became “a struggle.” Id. at 92. She
began taking on overtime hours and worked with creditors to make sure they understood the
hardship the family was experiencing, due to the aforementioned reasons, and to establish payment
plans. Id. at 84–85, 92–93. Every creditor she could contact let her reenter into a payment plan. Id.
at 85. The Individual’s wife explained that she maintains a binder to help her plan their finances,
and although she does go over some of the information with the Individual, the Individual does
not “go over absolutely everything in it.” Id. at 88–91. Using the binder, she stated that she has
planned for them to resolve their delinquent debts by the end of the year, and in some cases, the
end of June 2026. Id. at 91.
V. Analysis
9 The Individual’s wife utilized YouTube videos. Tr. at 95.
9
Guideline F
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that 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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
While I can see that the Individual’s wife has done some work to better the family’s financial
situation and to resolve delinquent accounts, I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated
the stated concerns. What I have before me is an unclear financial picture. The record indicates
that financial strains began in 2015, when the Individual decided not the reenlist in the military.
As stated above, he received his access authorization in 2015 in connection with his current
position. Although the Individual’s wife secured employment around 2018, the COVID-19
Pandemic compelled her to stay at home with their minor children, resulting in a worsening of the
family’s financial situation. The Individual’s wife secured employment in approximately 2023,
and using their 2024 tax refund, the family came current on their mortgage and car payments, but
again missed several mortgage and car payments in 2025. The family was earning two incomes up
until the recent past and based on the information I gathered at the hearing, before the Individual
10
stopped working in the months prior to the hearing, the family was earning approximately $10,000
per month. The testimony indicates that at some point in 2024 or 2025, the family had to contend
with home repairs and unexpected veterinary visits. Based on the Individual’s testimony, they have
also had expenses associated with the children’s extracurricular activities. They testified that they
became delinquent on the payments made pursuant to payment plans to satisfy outstanding debts
as a result of these unexpected expenses, but there is too little information in the record for me to
validate the extent to which these expenses, as opposed to other spending, prevented the Individual
from meeting the terms of the payment plans. As the Individual’s wife has made efforts to resolve
the family’s financial situation, they established new payment plans for all debts, except the debt
totaling $12,000. At the time of the hearing, the Individual and his wife made one payment
pursuant to the aforementioned new payment agreements. Accordingly, the future of these
delinquent accounts remains largely unsettled.
The record reveals an almost cyclical pattern of incurring debt and establishing payment
plans/satisfying accounts since 2015, the most recent cycle having taken place in 2024/2025. I
cannot conclude that the behavior happened long ago, was 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. The Individual has not met requirements of
mitigating factor (a).
While the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic was beyond anyone’s control, the couple did
financially recover, earning up to approximately $10,000 per month in the recent past. When asked
about the causes of his more recent financial troubles, the Individual’s wife indicated that that they
endured some costs associates with veterinary services and home repairs. The Individual also
indicated that they “[g]ot bogged down with a lot of extracurricular items, as far as school and
sports for the kids[.]” Tr. at 61. Without further information, the more recent difficulties appear to
be the result of financial mismanagement considering that the expenses cited by the Individual and
his wife are ordinary household expenses. I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the
stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
Finally, although the Individual has established payment plans for all but one of his outstanding
debts, as indicated above, I do not have a history of payments made pursuant to the payment plans.
The Individual recently discontinued payment plans he established to resolve his delinquent debts
before entering into new plans shortly before the hearing. Considering this recent history, I cannot
conclude that he is “adhering” to these payment plans. And further, one large debt remains
outstanding and without any payment plan in place to satisfy the amount owed. Mitigating factor
(d) has not been met.
Outside of an indication in the 2024 QNSP that the Individual was receiving financial help from a
financial assistance company, I have no further information on the matter. I have no information
whether that help continued into the recent past and whether the financial counseling was from a
legitimate or credible source. The Individual has failed to meet the requirements of mitigating
factor (c). Although the Individual disputed the legitimacy of one of the outstanding past debts,
totaling $27, he did not dispute any other current outstanding financial obligations. Further, the
record does not contain any documents substantiating the dispute and there is no evidence of
11
actions taken to resolve any disputed debt. Mitigating factor (e) has not been satisfied. The
allegations in the SSC did not involve any inexplicable affluence or any outstanding tax obligation.
Mitigating factors (f) and (g) are not applicable.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted
by the LSO under Guideline F.
Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
The Individual’s failure to disclose thousands of dollars of debt on his 2024 QNSP is concerning.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), I am tasked with considering, among other things, the
12
circumstances surrounding the conduct. In the matter at hand, the Individual stated in his testimony
that he assists in the clearance process for community members. Further, the Individual previously
completed and submitted a QNSP in 2015. Accordingly, I have an individual before me who
presumably understands the application process better than most applicants, but he failed to
disclose information that was easily ascertainable via his credit report. While I can understand that
debts that are in charge off status may not be at the forefront of the Individual’s mind, it is still
incumbent upon the Individual to provide complete and truthful information on a QNSP. Any
individual “seeking a security clearance should be well aware of the need for complete, honest and
candid answers to DOE questions. Therefore[,] when completing a QNSP such an individual
should err on the side of providing too much rather than too little information.” Personnel Security
Hearing, OHA Case No. TSO-0023 at 30‒31 (2003). The Individual failed to take the proper care
while completing his 2024 QNSP.
The Individual did not provide a compelling reason for his failure to provide the full extent of his
delinquent accounts, and he failed to do so on his most recent QNSP, which he completed a little
more than one year prior to the hearing. I cannot conclude that the offense is so minor, or so much
time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances
that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment. The Individual has failed to meet the requirements of mitigating factor (c).
There is no indication in the record that the Individual made any effort to disclose the information
omitted from the QNSP prior to being confronted with it by the investigator. Mitigating factor (a)
is not applicable. There is no indication in the record that the Individual omitted any information
from the QNSP based on the advice of an attorney or some other qualified individual. Therefore,
mitigating factor (b) is not applicable. There is no indication in the record that the Individual is
receiving counseling for the underlying behavior. Mitigating (d) is not applicable. There is no
allegation that the Individual was vulnerable or subject to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Mitigating factor (e) is not applicable. The Individual did not argue that the information cited in
the SSC came from a questionable source. Mitigating factor (f) is not applicable. The LSO did not
allege that the Individual was involved with any persons involved in criminal activities. Mitigating
factor (g) is not applicable.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted
by the LSO under Guideline E.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines F and E of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both 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 Guidelines F and E concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
13
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals