CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01528 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-01528

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/19/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 57-year-old technical specialist for a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct) in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The core allegations involved the applicant's significant financial debts, totaling over $100,000, which she incurred after falling victim to a scam where she believed she was communicating with a well-known actor. She admitted to sending money and gift cards to the impostor, resulting in multiple charged-off debts and collection accounts.
During the proceedings, the applicant acknowledged her debts but claimed she was a victim of a scam, asserting that the impostor had threatened her and promised to pay off her debts. She provided evidence of her attempts to mitigate the situation, including hiring an attorney to negotiate with creditors and seeking debt forgiveness. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant had displayed extremely poor judgment in compromising her personal information and financial stability. Ultimately, the judge ruled that the financial considerations and personal conduct concerns were not fully mitigated, leading to a denial of security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 21-01528

deniedJul 19, 2022· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old technical specialist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, including over $60,000 in defaulted debts. These debts arose partly from the applicant's engagement with an individual she believed to be a well-known actor, to whom she sent gift cards and money, and provided her Social Security number.

The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple outstanding debts, including seven charged-off debts totaling $12,164, along with additional collection and past-due accounts for $11,100, $1,038, $5,497, two debts for $5,753, $3,281, $5,542, $3,457, $8,218, and $5,945.

Despite the applicant's claim of being a victim of a scam, the judge found her financial conduct and personal judgment severely lacking. The denial was based on her poor financial judgment, the compromise of her personal information and financial stability through the scam, and her ongoing unpaid debts without proactive resolution, which collectively raised security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant defaulted on over $60,000 in debts, demonstrating poor financial judgment.
She compromised her personal information and financial stability by engaging with a scammer.
The applicant's ongoing unpaid debts and lack of proactive measures to resolve them raised security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant bore significant responsibility for her financial difficulties.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceiving Financial CounselingThere was no evidence of effective financial counseling or resolution of debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant had not made sufficient payments toward her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s personal debts.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. June 21, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 27, 2021
Answer filedOct 28, 2021
Hearing heldJun 7, 2022
Decision dateJul 19, 2022

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Leading to Security Clearance Denial
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Vulnerability to Exploitation as a Disqualifying Factor

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation under Guideline E, which involved communication with an impostor posing as a well-known actor. The applicant sent money and provided her Social Security number, resulting in significant delinquent debts. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions raised security concerns due to questionable financial judgment.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant communicated with a person whom she believed was a well-known actor, sent him gift cards and money, and provided her Social Security number, resulting in delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(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 several charged-off debts and collection accounts totaling over $60,000. The applicant's claims of being a scam victim were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant on the financial allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owed seven charged-off debts totaling $12,164 $12,164	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$11,100 $11,100	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$1,038 $1,038	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	$5,497 $5,497	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	two collection debts for $5,753 $5,753	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	specific text not stated in this decision	Withdrawn	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	$3,281 $3,281	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	$5,542 $5,542	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	$3,457 $3,457	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	$8,218 $8,218	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	a past-due account for $5,945 $5,945	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.