CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01379 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-01379

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/9/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 20-01379.a1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Gatha L. Manns
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), primarily due to the applicant's history of financial difficulties, including multiple bankruptcies and delinquent accounts.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, which included two Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings and several Chapter 13 filings that were dismissed. He acknowledged a pattern of financial mismanagement, including significant debts and expenditures that exceeded his income. Although he claimed that his financial issues stemmed from funeral expenses and that he had been advised by his attorney to stop paying creditors, he did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a budget to demonstrate improvement in his financial situation.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his financial history. The judge noted the lack of evidence showing the applicant's current financial stability or efforts to manage his debts responsibly. The decision emphasized that the applicant's financial issues posed a potential risk to national security, leading to the denial of his eligibility for a 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. 20-01379

deniedJul 9, 2021· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial mismanagement and unresolved debts. The Statement of Reasons detailed financial difficulties spanning over a decade, including numerous delinquent accounts. Specifically, the applicant had two Chapter 7 bankruptcies in October 2010 and May 2019, along with seven Chapter 13 bankruptcies filed between December 2010 and January 2016.

The applicant acknowledged over-extending himself financially, admitting to an extravagant lifestyle funded by credit cards used for travel, clothing, jewelry, and dining, which led to maxed-out accounts. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, while one mitigating condition was applied.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied because the applicant admitted to his financial history and multiple bankruptcies but failed to present a credible plan for resolving his outstanding debts. The judge concluded that these financial issues raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, making the granting of a clearance inconsistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple bankruptcies and a history of financial mismanagement.
He failed to demonstrate a credible plan for resolving his debts.
The judge found that his financial difficulties raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant cited unexpected expenses related to his father's funeral.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 11, 2020
Answer filedSep 25, 2020Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJul 9, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate a Credible Plan for Debt Resolution
Impact of Financial Mismanagement on Reliability and Trustworthiness Assessments

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 all financial allegations, citing a long history of financial difficulties, multiple bankruptcies, and a lifestyle that led to excessive credit card debt. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the financial concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of financial difficulties going back over a decade that have resulted in many accounts becoming delinquent.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The SOR alleged two Chapter 7 bankruptcies (October 2010 and May 2019), as well as seven Chapter 13 bankruptcies between December 2010 and January 2016.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant acknowledged that he had over-extended himself financially, living an extravagant lifestyle by charging his travel, clothing, jewelry, and dining out on his credit cards to the point where they became maxed out.	Against Applicant	Credit Card 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.