CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01169 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-01169

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/25/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 21-01169) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old individual who had served honorably in the U.S. Army from 1991 until his retirement in 2011. He was seeking a security clearance and faced allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) included a 2019 court judgment and 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $139,210, as well as an arrest for domestic violence in 2018 and an investigation for criminal damage to property in 2020.
The applicant admitted to the 2019 court judgment and eight of the delinquent debts, claiming he was making payments on several accounts and had hired a debt management company. He denied some allegations, asserting that certain debts were duplicates or had been settled. Regarding the personal conduct allegations, he admitted to the domestic violence arrest but stated that the charges were dismissed. The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made efforts to address his financial issues, the overall financial situation remained concerning, and the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns. Consequently, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information, emphasizing the importance of trust and confidence in individuals granted national security eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 21-01169

deniedFeb 25, 2022· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old retired U.S. Army veteran was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues, specifically under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to a court judgment and eight delinquent debts, totaling approximately $139,210. These admissions indicated an inability to satisfy debts, leading to the denial.

Regarding the specific financial allegations, the applicant acknowledged a 2019 court judgment and several delinquent accounts. For some debts, the applicant claimed to be making regular payments, including $600 monthly on one account and $300 monthly via direct withdrawal on another. The applicant also stated that one account was with a debt management group and believed another was paid through that company. While one account was denied as a duplicate, the applicant admitted to working with a bank to process paperwork for another.

The applicant also faced allegations under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) related to a 2018 domestic violence arrest. However, these charges were dismissed, and the judge found in the applicant's favor, as the government could not substantiate the claims. Despite mitigating conditions being applied, the overwhelming financial concerns ultimately led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The judge found no substantiated evidence for the personal conduct allegations against the applicant.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceiving Financial Counseling
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 issuedJul 15, 2021
Answer filedJul 27, 2021
Hearing held—Decision made without a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 25, 2022

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Considerations Despite Favorable Personal Conduct Findings
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Substantiating Allegations in Personal Conduct Cases

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the personal conduct concerns related to the applicant's 2018 arrest for domestic violence were mitigated. The applicant admitted to the arrest but the government conceded that the evidence did not support the allegation of criminal damage to property in 2020. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant regarding the personal conduct allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in 2018 for domestic violence, but the charges were dismissed.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including a court judgment and several delinquent debts. While some debts were admitted and others were claimed to be in payment plans, the overall financial situation was deemed insufficiently mitigated, resulting in a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted to the 2019 court judgment and eight of the delinquent debts. $4,728	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted and claimed that he pays $600 a month on the account. $34,420	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant stated that he pays $300 a month with a direct withdrawal. $13,500	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant intends to pay this bill in the future. $8,505	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant stated that this account is with the debt management group. $12,477	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant believed it was paid through the debt management company. (low confidence) $5,747	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Applicant denied this account and stated it was a duplicate of SOR 1.b. $38,795	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Applicant admitted that he is working with the bank currently processing paperwork again. $6,255	Against 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.