CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00661 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00661

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/21/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Case Summary
Applicant, a 49-year-old prospective employee of a defense contractor, applied for a security clearance in August 2021. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 2, 2022, citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The SOR detailed nine delinquent accounts totaling approximately $49,978, including significant student loan debt and other unpaid accounts, which raised concerns about the applicant's financial responsibility.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to most of the allegations but provided limited mitigation. He acknowledged having financial issues and indicated intentions to contact creditors to establish repayment plans. However, he did not submit evidence of any actions taken to resolve the debts, and many accounts remained unresolved. The applicant also referenced his experience with ITT Technical Institute, claiming that predatory lending practices contributed to his financial difficulties.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his financial situation. The judge noted the applicant's lack of proactive measures to address his debts and the absence of evidence demonstrating any efforts to resolve the delinquent accounts. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied.
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. 22-00661

deniedOct 21, 2022· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old prospective defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues totaling approximately $49,978. The applicant acknowledged several delinquent accounts, including four student loans totaling about $36,156.

Additional debts included a credit card account with an $8,629 unpaid balance that was charged off and placed for collection, another credit card with a $3,478 unpaid balance also charged off and placed for collection, and a third credit card with an $1,113 unpaid balance in collection. The applicant also had a medical account with a $380 unpaid balance in collection and an electric utility account with a $222 unpaid balance in collection.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve these multiple delinquent accounts. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial problems were not under control, citing ongoing delinquent debts and a lack of verifiable efforts to address them.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve multiple delinquent accounts totaling approximately $49,978.
The applicant's financial problems were not under control, as evidenced by ongoing delinquent debts and lack of verifiable efforts to address them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant failed to initiate any good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors despite promising to do so.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant was a victim of predatory lending practices associated with ITT Tech.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 2, 2022
Answer filedJul 1, 2022Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 21, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Lack of Good-faith Effort to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Denial
Consideration of Predatory Lending Practices in Financial Evaluations

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including several delinquent credit card accounts, student loans, a medical account, and an electric utility account. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on most allegations, citing a lack of responsible action to address the debts and insufficient efforts to resolve the accounts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant acknowledged having some financial issues associated with delinquent accounts. $0	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted to having four student loans totaling approximately $36,156. $36,156	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant has a credit-card account with an unpaid balance of $8,629 that was placed for collection and charged off. $8,629	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant acknowledged having a credit-card account with an unpaid balance of $3,478 that was placed for collection and charged off. $3,478	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant has a credit-card account with an unpaid balance of $1,113 that was placed for collection. $1,113	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant has a medical account with an unpaid balance of $380 that was placed for collection. $380	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has an electric utility account with an unpaid balance of $222 that was placed for collection. $222	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.h–1.i	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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.