CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03629 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-03629

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/6/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old senior solutions manager who had been employed in the same position since October 2018. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), specifically related to a charged-off account of nearly $70,000 associated with a second mortgage. The applicant admitted to the allegation but sought a decision based on the written record.
Key facts included the applicant's history of financial management, where he had acquired a home through two mortgages and later used a revolving line of credit to pay off the second mortgage. Following an economic downturn, he chose to stop making payments on the line of credit after moving into a new home, which led to the foreclosure of the first property. The applicant argued that his actions were based on sound judgment and legal advice, but he failed to provide documentation to support his claims or demonstrate efforts to resolve the delinquent debt.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. The judge found that the applicant's choice to cease payments on the line of credit indicated a lack of responsibility for his financial obligations. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding the nature of the charged-off account or to demonstrate that he was receiving financial counseling. Consequently, the judge determined that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national interest, and the application was denied.
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. 19-03629

deniedMay 6, 2021· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old senior solutions manager was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a significant charged-off account. The primary concern stemmed from a second mortgage debt of nearly $70,000 that had been charged off. This issue raised disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility and an unwillingness to meet financial obligations.

Despite the applicant's stable employment history and assertions of overall good financial standing, the judge found these insufficient to mitigate the concerns. The applicant admitted to the charged-off account but failed to provide documentation demonstrating any efforts to resolve the delinquent debt or engage with the lender.

Furthermore, the applicant's argument regarding state law protections for the debt was not supported by adequate documentation. Consequently, the judge determined that the financial concerns were not sufficiently mitigated, leading to the denial of the security clearance as inconsistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a charged-off account of nearly $70,000 related to a second mortgage.
The applicant provided no documentation showing efforts to address the delinquent debt or to work with the lender.
The applicant's argument regarding state law protections was unsupported by sufficient documentation.

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(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were self-inflicted and not due to circumstances beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial CounselingThe applicant did not provide evidence of receiving financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the delinquent debt.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 5, 2020
Answer filedFeb 26, 2020Applicant admitted the allegation.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 6, 2021

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Financial Decisions on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Documentation in Financial Responsibility Claims

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the financial considerations under Guideline F, specifically regarding a charged-off account for almost $70,000 related to a second mortgage. The applicant admitted to the debt but failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a charged-off account for almost $70,000 related to a second mortgage. $70,000	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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.