CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00608 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-00608

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/27/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 62-year-old program manager employed by a defense contractor since 1997, who sought security clearance eligibility after being issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing financial considerations under Guideline F. The SOR detailed multiple debts totaling over $49,000, including charged-off debts and a judgment debt, primarily attributed to the applicant's financial support of his third wife, who misused his credit cards and incurred additional debts without his knowledge.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several debts but denied responsibility for others, claiming they were incurred by his spouse. He provided explanations for his financial difficulties, including the impact of his second wife's medical expenses and the financial strain caused by his third wife's actions. Despite his efforts to address some debts, the administrative judge found that the applicant had not made sufficient progress in resolving his financial issues and that concerns regarding his financial judgment remained unmitigated.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his security clearance eligibility. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial irresponsibility, particularly in relation to the debts incurred during his marriage, posed a risk to national security, as it indicated a lack of reliability and judgment necessary for access to classified information.
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. 21-00608

deniedJun 27, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old program manager with a top-secret clearance was denied a security clearance due to significant financial delinquencies under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial issues stemmed from debts incurred during his marriage to a spouse with substance abuse problems. While he admitted responsibility for some debts, he denied liability for others, asserting they were incurred without his knowledge.

The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or progress in resolving the outstanding debts. Specifically, his claims of being unaware of certain spousal debts were unsubstantiated. These ongoing financial issues raised concerns regarding his judgment and reliability.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions, the disqualifying conditions related to overdue debts and an inability to satisfy financial obligations ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient progress in resolving his financial delinquencies.
The applicant's claims of being unaware of debts incurred by his spouse were not substantiated with evidence.
The applicant's ongoing financial issues raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedFailure to Live Within One's Means
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedCircumstances Beyond ControlThe applicant's financial issues were exacerbated by his spouse's substance abuse and medical expenses.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial CounselingThe applicant did not demonstrate ongoing financial counseling or a clear plan for debt resolution.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant's efforts to address debts were deemed insufficient and lacking a structured repayment plan.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 18, 2021
Answer filedJul 28, 2021
Hearing heldMay 17, 2022via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateJun 27, 2022

Cite For

Financial Responsibility and Judgment Under Guideline F
Impact of Spousal Financial Misconduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts Leading to Denial of Clearance.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.