PSH-26-0030

*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: December 29, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0030
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 11, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Andrew Dam, 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 should not be granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual applied for access authorization in connection with her employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 7.2 The Individual submitted a January 2025 Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP), in which she self-reported having financial issues due to
gambling. Ex. 5 at 94. She also self-disclosed 20 delinquent financial obligations. Id. at 95–115.
A credit report from February 2025 reflected a combination of charged-off accounts and accounts
under collections. Ex. 4 at 18–26; Ex. 7 at 239–47.
Due to the unresolved security concerns, the LSO sent the Individual a Notification Letter in
October 2025, informing the Individual that it possessed reliable information creating a substantial
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 Local Security Office (LSO) combined its exhibits into a single, Bates-stamped PDF workbook. This Decision
references these exhibits by the exhibit number and the Bates stamp page number.
2
doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex. 1 at 7–9.3 In an attachment to the
letter titled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained the derogatory information
raised concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
The Individual exercised her right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 11. The LSO submitted seven numbered exhibits (Exs. 1–7) into the
record. The Individual submitted six lettered exhibits (Exs. A–F).4 The Individual testified as the
sole witness. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0030 (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] concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused by
gambling . . . .” Id. at ¶ 19(a), (c), (e), (i).
The SSC cited to information regarding eight charged-off accounts (Charged-Off Accounts 1–8),
fourteen other delinquent accounts in collections (Collections Accounts 1–14), and the
Individual’s history of gambling leading to the financial instability. Ex. 1 at 5–6. The accounts are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Accounts Charged Off and in Collections
Creditor(s) Account Liability
Digital Federal Credit Union (FCU) Charged-Off Account 1 $9,991
Capital One Charged-Off Account 2 $2,689
Navy FCU Charged-Off Account 3 $2,586
Navy FCU Charged-Off Account 4 $1,849
Affirm, Inc. Charged-Off Account 5 $1,104
Discovery Bank Charged-Off Account 6 $994
Credit First Charged-Off Account 7 $908
3 The Notification Letter in the DOE exhibit notebook lacks a date and signature. Ex. 1 at 7–9. However, the LSO sent
the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) the Notification Letter attached as an enclosure to the Request for an
Administrative Judge (Request) bearing a digital signature dated in October 2025. See Request for Administrative
Judge at 6 (Dec. 23, 2025).
4 The Individual submitted her exhibits in three separate PDF files. References to the Individual’s exhibits are to the
exhibit letter and the PDF page number.
3
Creditor(s) Account Liability
Bank of America Charged-Off Account 8 $771
Security Credit Service (SCS), originally held by Collections Account 1 $16,835
Pentagon FCU
SCS, originally held by Pentagon FCU Collections Account 2 $15,862
LVNV Funding, LLC, originally held by Navy Collections Account 3 $12,171
Funding, LLC
National Credit Adjust, originally held by RSVP Collections Account 4 $4,374
Loans
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, originally Collections Account 5 $2,041
held by Department Stores National
Midland Credit Management (Midland), Collections Account 6 $1,978
originally held by Comenity Capital Bank
(Comenity)
Midland, originally held by Comenity and Collections Account 7 $1,302
Overstock.com
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, originally Collections Account 8 $812
held by Citibank NA
Midland, originally held by Comenity and Collections Account 9 $587
Ultimate Rewards
Midland, originally held by Citibank NA Collections Account 10 $463
Net Credit Collections Account 11 $3,160
Pentagon FCU Collections Account 12 $15,000
Comenity Collections Account 13 $2,135
Navy FCU Collections Account 14 $47,300
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
4
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
a. Charged-Off Accounts
For Charged-Off Account 1, the Individual testified that this debt belonged to her husband and that
she was an authorized user on this account. Tr. at 17–18. The Individual submitted a screenshot of
an email she received from the creditor of this account. See Ex. A at 7. The email states that the
creditor removed the Individual from the account as an authorized user. Id. She indicated that she
does not have responsibility for the account. Id. at 17–18. The Individual’s husband has not settled
the debt. Id. at 18.
For Charged-Off Account 2, two credit reports retrieved in April 2026 reflect that the Individual
became delinquent on this account in 2022 and still owes $2,689. Ex. D at 8; Ex. E at 86. The
Individual testified at the hearing that she called the creditor’s collections department and that the
settlement offer she received “was really high” and that she was still in negotiations regarding this
account. Tr. at 19. She intends to “continue [ ] reach[ing] out to them” to “see if [they] can come
to an agreement.” Id. at 20.
For Charged-Off Accounts 3 through 8, the Individual provided documentary evidence—
specifically communications from creditors, receipts from creditors, excerpts from her credit
report, and settlement agreements, among other documentation—reflecting that she paid a
settlement amount that resolved these financial obligations. Ex. A at 9–28.
b. Collections Accounts
Regarding Collections Accounts 1 and 2, the Individual’s two April 2026 credit reports reflect that
the amounts of $16,835 and $15,862 first became delinquent in 2021. Ex. D at 33, 35; Ex. E at
110–11. The Individual’s two April 2026 credit reports reflect that the Pentagon FCU “transferred”
or “sold” the delinquencies; the April 2026 reports for unknown reasons do not mention SCS as
the current creditor of those debts. Ex. D at 33, 35; Ex. E at 110–11 . But see Ex. 7 at 240 (February
2025 credit report reflecting SCS as creditor of these debts). The Individual indicated that she, on
February 2, 2026, attempted to email the current creditor, SCS, through an email address she found
on its website and tried to verify through an online portal that she had collections accounts with it.
Ex. B at 30–33. However, the Individual could not verify through SCS’s website portal that she
had collections accounts, and the email she sent to the SSC email address returned a message
indicating the email was undeliverable. Id. at 30–33; Tr. at 26–31. The Individual testified that she
received no communication indicating that the debts had been forgiven and that she still believes
that she owes these amounts. Tr. at 31–32.
For Collections Accounts 3, 5 through 10, and 14, the Individual provided documentary
evidence—communications from creditors, receipts from creditors, excerpts from her credit report,
5
and settlement agreements, among other documentation—that supports that she paid settlement
amounts that resolved these financial obligations. Ex. B at 34–47, 49–60, 75–78; Ex. F at 2–10.
Regarding Collections Account 4, the Individual’s February 2025 credit report reflects that she
owed a $4,374 debt assigned to another creditor in 2019. Ex. 7 at 241. The Individual testified that
she had taken out a personal loan with the original creditor of this debt. Tr. at 34–35. The debt
does not appear on her April 2026 credit reports. See generally Ex. D; Ex. E. At the hearing, the
Individual testified that she “may still owe” the debt and that she received no notification that the
debt was forgiven. Tr. at 35–37. She believes the debt does not appear on her April 2026 credit
reports given the age of the debt. Id. at 36–37; see also Ex. D at 54 (“Consumer reporting
agencies may not report outdated negative information. In most cases, a consumer reporting
agency may not report negative information that is more than seven years old, or bankruptcies that
are more than 10 years old.”) (formatting in original).
Regarding Collections Account 11, one of the Individual’s April 2026 credit reports reflects she
became delinquent on a $3,160 debt in 2018. Ex. E at 103. The creditor initiated debt collections
proceedings against the Individual in court. Ex. B at 62–70. In March 2026, the court vacated a
default judgment originally entered against the Individual, as plaintiff-creditor had served the
Individual at the wrong address. Id.; see also Tr. at 46–47. The Individual has retained counsel in
the debt collection case to negotiate a settlement amount. Tr. at 46–47. As of the date of the
hearing, the parties had not agreed on a settlement amount, though the Individual does not dispute
that she owes the debt. Id. at 47.
Regarding Collections Account 12, one of the Individual’s April 2026 credit reports reflects that
the original creditor, Pentagon FCU, sold the debt to Axiom Acquisition Ventures, LLC (Axiom).
Ex. E at 112 (reflecting an original balance of $15,000 and $16,562 written off). The original
delinquency occurred in 2021. Id. The Individual indicated that she could not “validate ownership”
of the debt “via [the] Axiom web portal.” Ex. B at 72. The Individual does not dispute that she has
not paid off this loan. Tr. at 53–54.
Regarding Collections Account 13, the Individual asserts that Collections Account 13 and
Collections Account 6 reference the same debt. Ex. B at 51; Tr. at 54. One of the Individual’s April
2026 credit reports supports this, where it indicates that Comenity assigned a $1,978 debt with an
original balance of $2,135 to Midland. Ex. E at 127. The Individual resolved this debt with a
creditor by paying a settlement amount. Ex. B at 52.
c. Gambling Problem and Other Financial Considerations
In her January 2025 QNSP, the Individual provided the following: “I have gambled and played
poker socially for most of my adult life, but poker became a problem over the last 8 years [in
2017]. During this time gambling led to substantial financial losses, impacting my ability to
manage finances effectively and contributing to the accumulation of debt.” Ex. 5 at 94. The
Individual recognized at the end of 2020 that she was “not recovering the money” that she had lost
gambling. Tr. at 77–78. At around this time, the Individual was able to “pay . . . some of the[ ]
bills” with “credit cards” without informing her husband of her behavior. Id. at 78. However, she
eventually had to disclose to him her gambling habit. Id. She estimates that the last time she
6
gambled was in October 2021. Id. at 79. The Individual submitted a letter from the state indicating
that she had opted into a state-wide self-exclusion program, meaning that licensed cardrooms will
remove her from the premises if she tries to enter and confiscate any unredeemed jackpots or prizes
for remittance to the state. Ex. C at 82. She attended tele-therapy for her gambling issues and
attended mutual support groups for women with gambling problems from the end of 2021 until
some point in 2022. Tr. at 79–80.
The Individual also cited to the Covid-19 pandemic as contributing to her family’s financial
burdens, as her husband worked in a service industry and lost access to regular work, which
“extended long past” the pandemic. Id. at 68–70, 72. She testified that his income had not “really
increase[d]” until about last year. Id. at 72. She also indicated that their family consists of three
school-age children, one of whom has special needs. Id. at 69. She indicated that their child’s
special needs had not been identified and diagnosed until 2021 and that this naturally incurred
more expenses with respect to medical treatment and providing other supports. Id. at 70–71.
The Individual testified that she has not reached out to a nonprofit credit counseling service at any
point. Id. at 65.
V. ANALYSIS
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.
7
Regarding mitigating condition (a), one of the behaviors at issue here is the Individual’s failure to
satisfy debts, which was brought on by another behavior, specifically her gambling problem. Her
gambling problem occurred long ago, given her testimony that she has not gambled since October
2021. However, the Individual still owes over $50,000 in past due money with respect to Charged-
Off Account 2 and Collections Accounts 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12. These delinquencies arose from 2019
through 2022 and remained outstanding as of the date of the hearing. I cannot find the delinquent
debts to have “occurred so long ago” or “to be unlikely to recur” where these debts remain actively
overdue and unpaid. I also cannot find the debts “infrequent”—given the number of delinquent
accounts and missed payments that occurred over several years. Mitigating condition (a) cannot
wholly resolve the financial issues raised.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), I have some testimony that some conditions that resulted in
the Individual’s financial problems were “beyond [her] control.” In particular, the Individual cited
to her family’s reduced household income due to the pandemic and increased expenses with respect
to her child’s special-needs accommodations. However, the Individual’s overall financial
problems appear to largely stem from the Individual’s gambling which resulted in her inability to
pay her financial obligations. While I am sympathetic to these circumstances, I am also unable to
conclude that her financial situation was not in her control. Additionally, Charged-Off Account 2
and Collections Accounts 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 remain outstanding after several years of delay. I
cannot find that she acted responsibility given the number of those outstanding delinquencies and
the years they have remained pending. Mitigating condition (b) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), I have testimony that the Individual has received counseling
specific to her gambling problem. This, on its face, does not seem to amount to “financial
counseling” as contemplated by this mitigating condition. The Individual has also testified that she
has not consulted a nonprofit credit counseling service and has not otherwise indicated that she
has received “financial counseling.” Moreover, even if she had, it is apparent that the situation is
not under control considering the substantial delinquent debt the Individual has not resolved.
Mitigiating condition (c) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual provided evidence that she has satisfied many
of her delinquencies, which I commend. However, the fact remains that Charged-Off Account 2
and Collections Accounts 1, 2, 4, 11, and 12 remain outstanding. I have no indication that she has
entered payment plans on these accounts. Mitigating condition (d) does not apply.
Mitigating condition (e) does not apply, as the Individual does not challenge the validity of the
past-due debts.
Mitigating condition (f) does not apply, as the SSC raised no concerns regarding unexplained
affluence.
Mitigating condition (g) does not apply, as the SSC raised no concerns regarding the filing of tax
returns or payment of taxes.
As such, I find that the Individual has not fully mitigated the security concerns raised under
Guideline F.
8
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.
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals