CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01767 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-01767

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/31/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Claude R. Heiny II
Government Counsel: Bryan J. Olmos
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 51-year-old quality inspector employed by a defense contractor since June 2018, seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) due to a significant student loan in collection, other delinquent debts, and the dismissal of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy for defaulting on payments. The SOR was later amended to include Guideline E (personal conduct) related to past charges of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, which were dismissed in 2007.
The applicant admitted to most of the debts listed in the SOR, except for one minor account, and provided explanations regarding his financial difficulties, including periods of unemployment and a divorce. He claimed to have resumed mortgage payments on his home and was making court-ordered payments towards his student loan. However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, and no documentation was submitted post-hearing to address the delinquent accounts. The administrative judge found that the financial issues were not mitigated, while the personal conduct allegations were not established.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information, stating that the financial considerations raised significant concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, which were not sufficiently addressed. The judge emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in maintaining national security and concluded that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion required for a favorable security decision.
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. 19-01767

deniedMar 31, 2020· Hon. Claude R. Heiny II· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old quality inspector was denied a security clearance primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations including a $72,574 student loan in collection, a $3,509 telephone service collection account, a $1,092 credit card collection debt, an $833 bank credit card collection account, and a $155 bank card account in collection.

While allegations of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) were not substantiated, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. The numerous and recent delinquent debts remained unpaid, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that conditions beyond the applicant's control contributed to these financial delinquencies.

Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information, as the financial difficulties and delinquent obligations were not adequately addressed.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence addressing his financial difficulties and delinquent obligations.
The applicant's delinquent debts are numerous, recent, and remain unpaid.
The applicant did not submit evidence of any conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial delinquencies.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or Under Unlikely Circumstances to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Creditors
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute Legitimacy of Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is an evaluation of an individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. It is not a debt-collection procedure.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 17, 2019
Answer filedAug 26, 2019Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldJan 16, 2020Record held open for additional documentation.
Decision dateMar 31, 2020

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Unsubstantiated Personal Conduct Charges Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns in Security Clearance Cases.

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the personal conduct security concern regarding aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child charges was not established. The applicant denied any inappropriate conduct, and the charges were dismissed by the state in the interest of justice. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's overall judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness raised concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child charges	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including a significant student loan collection account and several other debts in collection. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, indicating insufficient evidence of mitigation or resolution of the debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.b	$72,574 student loan collection account $72,574	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	$3,509 telephone service collection account $3,509	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	$1,092 credit card collection debt $1,092	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	$833 bank credit card collection account $833	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	$155 bank card account in collection $155	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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.