CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01287 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-01287

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/23/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 21-01287) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 66-year-old individual employed in physical security since 1991, who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline F, concerning financial considerations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that he had defaulted on six accounts, totaling over $50,000 in debt, with only one debt settled at the time of the hearing. The applicant admitted to five of the six debts but denied the sixth, claiming it had been paid. He explained that he was working with a debt-resolution company to address his financial issues.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had not made sufficient progress in resolving his debts, despite having settled one account. The judge noted that the applicant had not contacted his creditors in over three years and expressed no intention to pay the defaulted balances, although he indicated a willingness to settle for less if contacted. Ultimately, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance eligibility, concluding that the applicant's financial situation posed a security concern and was not consistent with the national interest.
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. 21-01287

deniedFeb 23, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 66-year-old security guard supervisor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had defaulted on six accounts, accumulating over $50,000 in total debt. Specific charged-off debts included amounts of $14,237, $12,495, $4,415, $4,301, and $10,534.

While the applicant settled one credit card debt of $10,534, and claimed another debt was paid, the judge found insufficient progress on the remaining obligations. The applicant also failed to present a plan for addressing the majority of his outstanding charged-off debts.

These factors led to concerns about the applicant's financial responsibility, judgment, and overall reliability, resulting in the denial of the security clearance. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c) were raised, with mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(d) applied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant defaulted on six accounts totaling over $50,000 in debt, with only one debt settled.
The applicant expressed no plan to pay the majority of his charged-off debts, indicating a lack of financial responsibility.
The applicant's financial history raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant settled one debt for less than its full balance.

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
— AG ¶ 18

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2021
Answer filedJul 7, 2021Applicant submitted an undated response.
Hearing heldFeb 2, 2022Case assigned to judge.
Decision dateFeb 23, 2022

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Demonstrating a Plan for Debt Repayment

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, noting that the applicant defaulted on multiple accounts totaling over $50,000 and had a history of not meeting financial obligations. The applicant's claims of working with a debt-relief firm were not sufficiently documented, leading to a decision against the applicant on the majority of the debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant defaulted on six accounts on which he owed more than $50,000 in total debt. $50,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant owed charged-off debts of $14,237, $12,495, $4,415, $4,301, and $10,534. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has settled one of the debts, a credit-card debt charged off for $10,534. $10,534	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied the debt in SOR 1.f on the basis that it has been paid. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.e–1.f	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	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.