CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02089 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02089

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/23/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael H. Leonard
Government Counsel: Gatha L. Manns
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old technician employed in the defense industry, seeking eligibility for access to classified information. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The SOR detailed a history of financial problems, including eight delinquent accounts totaling approximately $44,915, and alleged that the applicant had provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his financial status.
The applicant admitted to several debts but attributed his financial difficulties to legal expenses stemming from his divorce and ongoing child support obligations. He denied intentionally providing false information, claiming he misread the questions on the security clearance application. The applicant provided some documentation to support his claims, including proof of payment for one debt, but did not submit sufficient evidence to mitigate the overall financial concerns raised in the SOR.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not presented adequate evidence to explain or mitigate his financial issues. While the judge acknowledged that the applicant did not intentionally falsify information, the history of unresolved debts and the lack of a clear plan to address them raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.
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. 21-02089

deniedMar 23, 2022· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense industry technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations of falsifying financial history on his security clearance application, as well as multiple unresolved debts.

Specific financial issues included a $9,575 charged-off account for divorce-related legal expenses, a $4,632 collection account for a motorcycle loan, a $388 charged-off auto insurance account, a $299 disputed collection account, and a $71 cable service collection account. While a $10,564 balance after an automobile repossession was resolved with proof of payment, and a $19,386 charged-off account was unproven as the applicant was only an authorized user, a mortgage loan also went into foreclosure before being resolved with a $0 balance.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant did not intentionally falsify information on his application, mitigating concerns under Guideline E. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate his financial problems, demonstrating a history of excessive indebtedness and unresolved debts totaling approximately $14,759. The applicant also did not show a good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent accounts, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate his financial problems.
The applicant has a history of excessive indebtedness and unresolved debts totaling approximately $14,759.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent accounts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“It is well-established law that no one has a right to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 15, 2021
Answer filedNov 7, 2021
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 23, 2022

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Non-intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Burden of Proof in Security Clearance Cases Is Less Than a Preponderance of Evidence.

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 applicant falsified answers regarding his financial history in his security clearance application. Despite the applicant's admissions and explanations, the judge ruled against him on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, concluding that he did not mitigate the issues raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Falsified answers regarding financial history in security clearance application.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 charged-off accounts and collection accounts, totaling approximately $14,759. The judge ruled against the applicant on four allegations, citing a lack of remedial action on the debts, while finding in favor of the applicant on three other allegations, including a resolved repossession and a disputed account.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$9,575 charged-off account related to legal expenses for divorce. $9,575	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$4,632 collection account from a loan to buy a motorcycle. $4,632	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$388 charged-off account related to auto insurance. $388	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	$299 collection account in dispute. $299	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	$71 collection account related to cable service. $71	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	$10,564 balance due after repossession of an automobile, resolved with proof of payment. $10,564	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.g	$19,386 charged-off account, unproven as Applicant was an authorized user. $19,386	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Mortgage loan went into foreclosure, resolved with $0 balance. $0	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

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.