CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02422 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-02422

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/1/2021
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old engineering technician who had previously served in the U.S. military and held a Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline F, which pertains to financial considerations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant owed approximately $49,853 in delinquent debts across multiple accounts, which he largely ignored due to his financial situation.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to being delinquent on the debts but attributed his financial troubles to a decline in income after leaving military service and various personal circumstances, including his spouse's unemployment and their reliance on credit cards. He expressed embarrassment about his financial situation and acknowledged that he had not actively managed their finances. Although he had considered bankruptcy, he had not taken concrete steps to address his debts or engage with creditors.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, concluding that he had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or a proactive approach to resolving his debts. The judge noted that the applicant's lack of engagement with creditors and failure to seek financial counseling or take steps to mitigate his financial issues contributed to the decision, which was deemed not clearly consistent with the national interest.
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. 20-02422

deniedJul 1, 2021· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old engineering technician and former military member was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $49,853. The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant had largely ignored these debts due to his financial situation, demonstrated a history of not meeting financial obligations, and that his financial situation presented an unacceptable security risk.

The judge found that the applicant had largely ignored his financial obligations and failed to take adequate steps to address them. Specifically, he did not seek financial counseling or negotiate with creditors to resolve his debts. These actions raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

While Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c) were raised, Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(b) and AG ¶ 20(e) were applied. However, the applicant's failure to adequately address his substantial delinquent debts ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant owed approximately $49,853 in delinquent debts that he largely ignored due to his financial situation.
He did not take adequate steps to address his debts, including failing to seek financial counseling or negotiate with creditors.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA 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's financial difficulties were exacerbated by a significant decrease in income after military discharge.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant disputed one specific debt but did not provide evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s personal debts.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2020
Answer filedJan 5, 2021
Hearing heldMay 24, 2021via DCS video teleconference
Decision dateJul 1, 2021

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Importance of Addressing Financial Obligations for Maintaining Trustworthiness
Consideration of Financial Difficulties in the Context of National Security Eligibility

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 that the applicant owed approximately $49,853 in delinquent debts, which he largely ignored due to his financial situation. The applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations and the substantial amount of delinquent debt presented an unacceptable security risk, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owes approximately $49,853 in delinquent debts that he has largely ignored because of his financial situation. $49,853	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant's financial situation presents an unacceptable security risk.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i–1.l	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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.