CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01508 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-01508

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/10/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 65-year-old linguist for the U.S. military, who faced security clearance concerns primarily under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that he defaulted on approximately $50,366 in credit card debt across four accounts and allegedly falsified his security clearance application by failing to disclose these debts.
The applicant admitted to the debts, attributing them to financial difficulties stemming from a failed liquor store business and subsequent unemployment. He claimed to have sought legal assistance to negotiate settlements with creditors but had not made any payments or reached any agreements by the time of the hearing. While he acknowledged the inaccuracies in his security clearance application, he contended that he did not intentionally falsify the information, citing a misunderstanding of the questions.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, concluding that the financial considerations raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated. The judge found that the applicant's failure to resolve his debts and the lack of evidence demonstrating a good faith effort to address the financial issues contributed to the decision, while the personal conduct allegations were not substantiated due to the applicant's lack of intent to deceive.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 19-01508

deniedFeb 10, 2020· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 65-year-old linguist for the U.S. military was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial issues and concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant defaulted on approximately $50,366 in credit-card debt across four accounts, specifically citing charged-off debts of $22,580, $11,737, and $7,953, along with a collection debt of $8,096.

Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have falsified his June 19, 2018 security clearance application by denying that any bills or debts had been turned over to a collection agency within the preceding seven years. Disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c) were raised.

Despite the applicant's claim of misunderstanding regarding the falsification allegations, the judge found that the financial concerns were not mitigated. The applicant failed to present a responsible plan to resolve his debts and provided no evidence of payments made. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant defaulted on $50,366 in credit-card debt, which raised significant financial concerns.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a responsible plan to resolve his financial issues, with no evidence of payments made toward his debts.
The applicant's claims of misunderstanding regarding the falsification allegations were not sufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant's financial problems were attributed to the failure of his spouse's liquor store business.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsWhile the applicant initiated settlement negotiations, he did not provide evidence of payments or a clear plan to resolve his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2019
Answer filedAug 16, 2019Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 10, 2020

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Misunderstanding of Application Questions Does Not Mitigate Financial Concerns

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had falsified his June 19, 2018 SCA by responding negatively to inquiries about debts turned over to collection agencies. However, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on this allegation, indicating that the applicant did not willfully falsify the information but misunderstood the questions. The overall outcome of the case was a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant is alleged to have falsified his June 19, 2018 SCA by responding negatively to inquiries concerning whether, in the past seven years, he had any bills or debts turned over to a collection agency.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant defaulted on significant credit card debts totaling over $50,000, which raised serious financial concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims of improved financial circumstances and intentions to settle debts, the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant defaulted on some $50,366 in credit-card debt on four accounts. $50,366	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant owes charged-off credit-card debts of $22,580 (SOR ¶ 1.a), $11,737 (SOR ¶ 1.b), and $7,953 (SOR ¶ 1.d), and a collection debt of $8,096 (SOR ¶ 1.c).	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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