CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00906 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-00906

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/31/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 20-00906) →
Participants
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Brittany C. M. White
Applicant's Counsel: Jerald Washington
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 44-year-old security guard with a history of financial difficulties and foreign influence concerns. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing issues under Guideline F (financial considerations), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline B (foreign influence). The core allegations included approximately $49,000 in debt, failure to disclose delinquent debts on his security clearance application, and ongoing communication with a family member residing in Nigeria.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some of the financial allegations but denied others, claiming he was unaware of certain debts. He provided evidence of attempts to resolve his financial issues, including payment plans for some debts and the engagement of a credit repair agency. However, he failed to provide proof of timely payments as required by the agreements. The administrative judge found that while the applicant mitigated some foreign influence concerns, he did not sufficiently address the financial considerations and personal conduct issues, leading to a denial of security clearance eligibility. The judge emphasized the importance of financial responsibility and the potential risks associated with the applicant's financial history in relation to national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 20-00906

deniedMar 31, 2022· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old married security guard with three children was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While the applicant successfully mitigated foreign influence concerns related to his father-in-law, a Nigerian citizen, and his mother-in-law, a naturalized U.S. citizen, significant financial and personal conduct issues remained unresolved.

The applicant faced allegations of substantial delinquent debts, including a car note of approximately $27,000, a credit card account totaling $16,148, a tuition payment of $2,740, a loan of $1,503, and other debts of $1,032, $502, and $81. These financial issues, totaling approximately $49,000, were not adequately mitigated.

Furthermore, the applicant was found to have falsified his security clearance application by failing to list these delinquent debts and by not disclosing relevant financial information during the investigative process. These omissions raised unmitigated concerns regarding personal conduct. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated foreign influence concerns regarding his father-in-law.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(c)appliedContact or Communication with Foreign Citizens Is so Casual and Infrequent
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 5, 2021
Answer filedFeb 15, 2021
Hearing heldDec 14, 2021via video-teleconference
Decision dateMar 31, 2022

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Issues of Personal Conduct Related to Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E

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 B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's relationships with his mother-in-law, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and his father-in-law, a Nigerian citizen, did not pose a security risk. The applicant's ties to the U.S. were noted, and the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on both allegations under Guideline B, ultimately leading to a denial of the security clearance based on other factors.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Home or Property

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
3.a	Relationship with mother-in-law, a naturalized U.S. citizen.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	—	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Contact with father-in-law, a Nigerian citizen.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Nigeria HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of falsification and failure to disclose relevant financial information. The applicant's omission of delinquent debts on his security clearance application was deemed significant, leading to a denial of his security clearance eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Falsified security clearance application by failing to list delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	Failure to disclose relevant financial information during the investigative process.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 a delinquent car note, credit card debt, and other unpaid obligations. While some debts were found to be mitigated, the overall financial situation was deemed inconsistent with national security interests, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent car note totaling approximately $27,000. $27,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Credit card account totaling $16,148. $16,148	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.c	Delinquent tuition payment totaling $2,740. $2,740	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.d	Delinquent loan totaling $1,503. $1,503	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.e	Delinquent debt totaling $1,032. $1,032	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Debt Settlement
1.f	Allegedly delinquent phone bill totaling $502. $502	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Delinquent satellite television bill totaling $81. $81	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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.