CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01527 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-01527

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/26/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 20-01527.a1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 34-year-old financial analyst employed by a defense contractor, who applied for a security clearance in December 2017. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) in September 2020, citing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The SOR detailed four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $27,619, primarily related to student loans, which the applicant had failed to address adequately.
In her response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to two of the delinquent accounts but denied the validity of the other two. She provided various explanations regarding her financial situation, including claims that her parents had paid her student loans and that she had taken steps to address her debts. However, she did not submit any supporting documentation to substantiate her claims or demonstrate her financial stability, such as income statements or evidence of a repayment plan.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR. The judge noted the lack of evidence supporting her claims and the absence of a clear plan to resolve her debts. Ultimately, the judge determined that granting the applicant a security clearance was not consistent with the national interest, leading to a denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 20-01527

deniedMar 26, 2021· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old financial analyst was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The denial stemmed from four delinquent student loans totaling approximately $27,619.

Specifically, the Statement of Reasons detailed four allegations: a $7,000 student loan with an unpaid balance of $12,650; a $5,500 student loan with an unpaid balance of $8,126; a $4,500 student loan with an unpaid balance of $5,599; and another student loan with an unpaid balance of $1,244. All four loans were initially granted by a lender, transferred to a servicing agent, defaulted, and subsequently returned to the Department of Education.

The applicant admitted to two of these allegations but failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to mitigate the financial concerns. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial distress raised significant questions about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to mitigate financial concerns.
The applicant admitted to two allegations of delinquent loans, which were significant.
The judge concluded that the applicant's financial distress raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 22, 2020
Answer filedOct 15, 2020Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMar 26, 2021

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Distress on Reliability and Trustworthiness
Admission of Allegations as a Factor in Security Clearance Denial

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 that the applicant had multiple delinquent student loans totaling approximately $27,619, with formal findings against the applicant for three of the four allegations. The applicant admitted to two debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns regarding her financial situation, resulting in a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$7,000 student loan with an unpaid balance increased to $12,650 that was initially granted by a lender, transferred to a servicing agent, and eventually, upon being defaulted, returned to the DOE. $12,650	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$5,500 student loan with an unpaid balance increased to $8,126 that was initially granted by a lender, transferred to a servicing agent, and eventually, upon being defaulted, returned to the DOE. $8,126	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$4,500 student loan with an unpaid balance increased to $5,599 that was initially granted by a lender, transferred to a servicing agent, and eventually, upon being defaulted, returned to the DOE. $5,599	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Student loan with an unpaid balance increased to $1,244 that was reportedly initially granted by a lender, transferred to a servicing agent, and eventually, upon being defaulted, returned to the DOE. $1,244	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

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.