CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02362 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-02362

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/6/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Jeffrey T. Kent
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old program analyst with a security clearance since 2007, who faced allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $38,000. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had failed to meet her financial obligations, which raised concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness in handling classified information.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to most of the allegations but disputed the amounts of certain debts. She attributed her financial difficulties to raising her children as a single mother, identity theft, and increased health insurance costs. Although she claimed to have a stellar career and was in the process of obtaining financial counseling, she had not made any payments on the debts listed in the SOR and had not filed her 2018 income tax returns. The applicant's husband also contributed to the financial issues, having taken out loans for a food truck that had not generated income.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence established multiple disqualifying conditions under Guideline F. The judge noted that the applicant's financial problems were not sufficiently mitigated by her explanations or her recent efforts to seek financial counseling. The judge emphasized that the applicant's unresolved debts and lack of a demonstrated track record in managing her finances raised significant concerns about her judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of her security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 19-02362

deniedMar 6, 2020· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $38,000 in delinquent and charged-off debts, along with unfiled 2018 tax returns. The applicant acknowledged financial difficulties and sought counseling, but the judge found her efforts insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

Specific allegations included a $17,008 charged-off account, which the applicant attributed to a total loss vehicle, and a $12,699 charged-off account that she stopped paying due to affordability issues. Other debts included collection accounts for $613 (claimed as a duplicate), $600 for apartment items from 2014, $553 with no payments since 2015, $471 delinquent since 2014, and a $435 credit card in collection since 2019, with the last payment in 2017. Additionally, a $5,629 charged-off account for unpaid furniture and a $129 charged-off credit account from 2012 remained unresolved.

The denial was based on the significant unresolved delinquent debts, the applicant's failure to timely file her 2018 federal and state income tax returns without a valid reason, and a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating efforts to resolve her financial issues. The judge concluded that granting a security clearance was not in the national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had significant unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $38,000.
The applicant failed to file her 2018 income tax returns without a valid reason.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns as Required

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 23, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 7, 2020Applicant requested to keep the record open until January 28, 2020.
Decision dateMar 6, 2020

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Failure to File Tax Returns on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing a history of not meeting financial obligations and failure to file income tax returns. The applicant's claims of financial hardship and identity theft were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by her financial delinquencies.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a charged-off account in the amount of $17,008, which she denied, claiming it was due to a vehicle that was a total loss. $17,008	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a charged-off account in the amount of $12,699, which she stopped paying because she could no longer afford them. $12,699	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has a collection account in the amount of $613, which she denied, stating it was a duplicate of another account. $613	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant has a collection account in the amount of $600 related to items in an apartment in 2014, which she has not resolved. $600	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant has a charged-off account in the amount of $553, with no payments made since 2015. $553	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant has a collection account in the amount of $471, which became delinquent in 2014 and is unresolved. $471	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant has a credit card in collection for $435 that went to collection in 2019, but the last payment was in 2017. $435	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant has a charged-off account in the amount of $5,629 for furniture that was bought and not paid for. $5,629	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant has a charged-off credit account in the amount of $129, which has not been addressed since 2012. $129	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant has not timely filed her 2018 income tax returns for both Federal and state, admitting she had no good reason for not filing.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—

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.