CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02553 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02553

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/18/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael H. Leonard
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 64-year-old engineer employed in the defense industry, seeking a security clearance after previously holding one. The Department of Defense (DoD) intended to deny his eligibility based on an unpaid judgment exceeding $40,000, which was detailed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) under Guideline F for financial considerations. The judgment stemmed from a court ruling in favor of his spouse due to his unilateral liquidation of retirement funds, which left him unable to meet the financial obligations outlined in their property settlement agreement.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR and provided a brief explanation, citing emotional distress and financial hardship following a layoff and marital separation. He indicated that he had been garnished for approximately $4,700 but did not present evidence of a repayment plan or voluntary payments toward the judgment. While he claimed a history of financial responsibility and expressed a desire to resolve the debt, the administrative judge found that he had not taken sufficient action to address the unpaid judgment.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence raised significant security concerns regarding his reliability and judgment. The judge noted that while the applicant's financial issues were partly due to circumstances beyond his control, he had not demonstrated a proactive approach to resolving the debt. Ultimately, the judge determined that granting the applicant eligibility for access to classified information was not clearly consistent with national interest, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 21-02553

deniedMay 18, 2022· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 64-year-old engineer with a prior security clearance was denied a new clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to an unpaid judgment exceeding $45,000. This judgment stemmed from a marital settlement. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited an unpaid judgment of more than $40,000, triggering disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(b).

While the applicant acknowledged the debt and presented some evidence of garnishment, he failed to provide a clear repayment plan or demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve the outstanding financial obligation. The judge applied mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(b) but ultimately found the applicant's financial irresponsibility raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant did not meet the standards required for access to classified information, and the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to having an unpaid judgment exceeding $45,000, raising significant financial concerns.
He did not provide evidence of a repayment plan or sufficient efforts to address the debt.
The judge found doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness due to his financial irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge acknowledged that the financial issues stemmed from a job layoff and marital separation, but found it insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“No one has a right to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 28, 2021
Answer filedJan 28, 2022
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMay 18, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Unpaid Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility and Repayment Plans
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations in Security Clearance 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant has an unpaid judgment of $45,235, which was awarded to his spouse due to his unilateral actions regarding their financial settlement. The judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient responsibility in addressing this debt, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has an unpaid judgment of more than $40,000. $45,235	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	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.