CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00465 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-00465

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/28/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging that the applicant had multiple delinquent accounts totaling approximately $35,847. The SOR detailed nine specific accounts, including automobile loans, medical debts, and a cellular phone account, which had been charged off or placed for collection.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to seven of the allegations related to his financial issues but denied two. He attributed his financial difficulties to various personal circumstances, including his father's health problems, unemployment, and identity theft. However, he failed to provide documentation to substantiate these claims. The applicant indicated that he was attempting to improve his financial situation by budgeting and seeking financial advice, but he had not resolved any of the delinquent accounts mentioned in the SOR.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns regarding his financial situation. The judge noted the applicant's lack of resolution for the delinquent accounts and his failure to provide a Personal Financial Statement as requested. Ultimately, the judge determined that granting the applicant a security clearance was not clearly consistent with the national interest, leading to a denial of eligibility for the 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. 20-00465

deniedSep 28, 2021· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues totaling approximately $35,847. The Statement of Reasons detailed nine delinquent accounts. These included a delinquent automobile loan from 2012, a voluntarily repossessed automobile loan in 2014, and an involuntarily repossessed automobile loan in 2018.

Additionally, the applicant had an unpaid balance of $756 for automobile insurance from 2019, an unpaid balance of $412 for a medical account from 2019, and two other medical accounts with unpaid balances of $169 and $132, also from 2019. A cellular telephone account had an unpaid balance of $1,048 from 2019, and an unspecified account had an unpaid balance of $374 from 2014.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of these nine unresolved delinquent accounts. Despite attributing his financial difficulties to personal circumstances, he failed to provide supporting documentation or a credible plan for debt resolution. The judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his ongoing financial issues, which raised substantial questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to nine delinquent accounts totaling approximately $35,847, which were unresolved at the time of the hearing.
He failed to provide documentation to support his claims regarding his financial difficulties and did not demonstrate a credible plan for debt resolution.
The applicant's ongoing financial issues raised substantial questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 2020
Answer filedMay 21, 2020
Hearing heldAug 20, 2021via DCS Video Teleconference
Decision dateSep 28, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Documentation Supporting Claims of Financial Difficulties
Lack of a Credible Plan for Debt Resolution in Financial 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including several delinquent accounts and repossessions totaling approximately $35,847. The applicant admitted to many of the debts but failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve them, leading to a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a delinquent automobile loan since 2012. $25,374	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant voluntarily returned an automobile loan via repossession in 2014. $4,521	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant's automobile loan was involuntarily repossessed in 2018. $3,061	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant has an unpaid balance of $756 for automobile insurance placed for collection in 2019. $756	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant has an unpaid balance of $412 for a medical account placed for collection in 2019. $412	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	Applicant has two medical accounts with unpaid balances of $169 and $132 placed for collection in 2019. $301	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	Applicant has a cellular telephone account with an unpaid balance of $1,048 placed for collection in 2019. $1,048	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Applicant has an unspecified type of account with an unpaid balance of $374 placed for collection in 2014. $374	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

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.