CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01676 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-01676

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/6/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles, Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old designer employed by a defense contractor since May 2005, who had held a Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance for over 16 years without any security violations. The adjudicative guideline at issue was Guideline F, concerning financial considerations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant defaulted on 14 consumer credit accounts, totaling approximately $28,954, primarily due to financial difficulties stemming from his divorce in August 2017.
The applicant admitted to the delinquency of the accounts listed in the SOR but claimed that he had made some progress in addressing his debts. He indicated that he had been on payment plans for several debts and had paid off others. He attributed his financial issues to the costs associated with his divorce, including attorney fees and child support obligations. Despite his efforts to manage his debts, concerns about his financial stability remained, as he had not fully resolved the outstanding debts.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance eligibility. The judge concluded that, while the applicant had made some progress in addressing his debts, the overall financial situation still posed a risk to national security. The judge emphasized that the applicant's financial delinquencies were significant and ongoing, which raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 20-01676

deniedMay 6, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The denial stemmed from 14 delinquent consumer-credit accounts, totaling approximately $28,954, which arose following a divorce. These included six charged-off debts amounting to $17,617.

While the applicant had begun making payments on some debts since June 2021 and had resolved some obligations, significant concerns about his financial stability and reliability persisted. His financial obligations were not met according to their terms, and many debts remained unresolved and unpaid.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's efforts to address his past-due debts were insufficient to mitigate the security concerns. The applicant's financial management was deemed inadequate, leading to the denial of his security clearance eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant defaulted on 14 consumer-credit accounts totaling approximately $28,954.
Concerns about the applicant's financial stability persisted despite some progress in addressing debts.
The applicant's financial management was deemed insufficient to mitigate security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions 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 issuedAug 20, 2021
Answer filed—Date not clear in the record.
Hearing heldApr 5, 2022Held via Microsoft Teams.
Decision dateMay 6, 2022

Cite For

Financial Responsibility and Its Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility
The Importance of Addressing Delinquent Debts in Security Clearance Cases
The Role of Mitigating Conditions in Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 significant financial concerns under Guideline F, ruling against the applicant on multiple debts totaling over $28,000. While the applicant demonstrated some progress in addressing his debts, the overall financial instability and unresolved obligations led to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant defaulted on 14 consumer-credit accounts totaling approximately $28,954. $28,954	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant owed six charged-off debts totaling $17,617. $17,617	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant has made some progress of late toward addressing his past-due debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.d	Concerns about his financial stability persist.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's financial obligations were not met according to terms.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	Applicant has been making payments on his debts since June 2021.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.g	Applicant's debts remain unresolved and unpaid.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	Applicant has resolved some debts and is making progress.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.i	Applicant's financial situation raises concerns about his reliability.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant's debts are significant and unresolved.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.k	Applicant has made payments on some debts and is working to resolve them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.l	Applicant has resolved some debts and is making progress.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.m	Applicant has made payments on some debts and is working to resolve them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence
1.n	Applicant has made payments on some debts and is working to resolve them.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence

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.