CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02372 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02372

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/7/2022
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 42-year-old contractor for a U.S. government department who sought a security clearance after being issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). The SOR identified three delinquent debts, primarily stemming from the applicant's divorce and separation from her former husband, which raised concerns about her financial stability and responsibility.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the debts outlined in the SOR, providing explanations and documentation regarding her financial situation. She indicated that the debts were largely a result of her former husband's failure to make payments after their separation. The applicant demonstrated efforts to address her financial issues, including a proposed repayment plan involving her ex-husband and evidence of her current financial stability, such as a positive monthly surplus and a long-term employment history. She also received positive testimonials regarding her character and work performance.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting her eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, emphasizing her proactive steps to resolve her debts and her stable employment, which contributed to a favorable assessment of her overall reliability and trustworthiness.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 21-02372

grantedDec 7, 2022· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The allegations primarily involved three debts: a $38,680 charge-off from a credit union for vehicles, a $1,209 utility bill sent to collections, and a $507 retail credit card account that was settled for approximately $200. These issues raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

However, the applicant presented mitigating evidence. She provided a settlement agreement for one of the debts, demonstrating proactive steps toward resolution. Additionally, another debt was removed from her credit report, indicating its resolution.

The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and concluded that her financial difficulties were largely a result of her divorce, a circumstance beyond her control. Based on these mitigating factors, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(e), ultimately granting the applicant eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant provided evidence of a settlement agreement for one debt, demonstrating proactive efforts to resolve her financial issues.
One debt was deleted from her credit report, indicating resolution of that financial obligation.
The judge found the applicant's testimony credible and determined her financial issues were largely due to her divorce, which was beyond her control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 17, 2021
Answer filedJan 4, 2022
Hearing heldOct 24, 2022via video-teleconference
Decision dateDec 7, 2022

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Due to Divorce Under Guideline F
Credibility of Applicant's Testimony in Financial Matters
Resolution of Debts Through Settlement Agreements and Credit Report Deletions

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had three delinquent debts, all of which were resolved or being managed by her former husband. The applicant's financial issues were attributed to her divorce, and she demonstrated a commitment to resolving her debts, leading to a decision in her favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Debt of $38,680 charged off by a credit union related to vehicles purchased during marriage. $38,680	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other
1.b	Debt of $1,209 placed for collection by a utility company related to marital home. $1,209	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other
1.c	Retail credit-card account of $507 settled for about $200. $507	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other

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.