CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01234 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-01234

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date3/31/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 19-01234.a1) →
Participants
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Applicant's Counsel: Alan V. Edmunds
Case Summary
security clearance. The applicant, a 36-year-old high school graduate with military experience, sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed his history of financial delinquency, including multiple collection debts totaling over $21,000, and a 2006 non-judicial punishment for fraudulent activities, including impersonation and making false statements.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some of the allegations, such as receiving non-judicial punishment and wearing a sergeant's uniform without proper authorization. However, he denied committing fraud or making false statements, attributing the charges to an "obsessive" first sergeant. He provided explanations for his financial issues, claiming some debts were inaccurately reported and contesting others. Despite his attempts to mitigate the concerns, the administrative judge found that the applicant's lack of candor regarding his past conduct and ongoing financial issues raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, citing insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and the seriousness of the applicant's past conduct, which undermined his credibility. The judge concluded that granting clearance would not be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01234

deniedMar 31, 2020· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old military veteran was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial delinquencies and personal conduct issues. Disqualifying conditions included a vehicle loan that was past due and significant collection debts. The applicant also received non-judicial punishment for fraudulent activities during his military service.

While mitigating conditions were considered, the judge found that the applicant's explanations for his financial issues lacked credibility. This, combined with the past fraudulent activities, raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's financial history and lack of candor about his past conduct were sufficient grounds for denial. The security clearance was therefore denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of financial delinquency, including being past due on a vehicle loan and owing significant amounts in collection debts.
The applicant received non-judicial punishment for fraudulent activities while in the military, which raised doubts about his rehabilitation and candor.
The applicant's explanations for his financial issues were not credible, leading to concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(e)appliedConsistent Spending Beyond One’s Means or Frivolous or Irresponsible Spending
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 10, 2019
Answer filedNov 11, 2019
Hearing heldMar 4, 2020
Decision dateMar 31, 2020

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Conduct Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Consideration of Candor and Credibility in Security Clearance Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.