CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00666 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-00666

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/12/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Gatha L. Manns
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), primarily due to the applicant's significant delinquent student loans totaling approximately $150,570. The SOR indicated that the applicant had failed to address these financial issues adequately, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the allegations regarding his financial difficulties, specifically acknowledging the delinquent student loans. He claimed that his financial hardships stemmed from insufficient income during his career transition and that he had made attempts to rehabilitate his loans through the Department of Education (DOE). However, he did not provide sufficient documentation to support his claims or demonstrate any concrete steps taken to resolve his financial issues. The administrative judge noted the lack of evidence regarding the applicant's current financial status and his failure to submit a budget or proof of financial counseling.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the security concerns related to his financial situation. The judge emphasized that the applicant's admissions and unverified claims did not sufficiently demonstrate a commitment to resolving his debts or a change in his financial circumstances, ultimately determining that granting a security clearance was not clearly consistent with the national interest.
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. 22-00666

deniedDec 12, 2022· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had six delinquent student loans, including one charged off by a credit union, totaling approximately $150,570.

The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant had six still-delinquent student loan accounts with the Department of Education totaling approximately $48,582, plus the charged-off credit union loan of $101,988. The applicant admitted to prioritizing normal bills over student loan payments, even after securing his current position in December 2019. Furthermore, no efforts were made to address these loans from August 2018 until March 2021, and the applicant failed to provide documentation verifying any claimed efforts with the Department of Education.

The judge concluded that the applicant's financial problems were not under control, with initial unverifiable efforts to resolve them only beginning in 2021. The applicant had not made efforts to rehabilitate the loans, and an apparent disinterest or inability to focus on these accounts suggested a reluctance or unwillingness to satisfy the debts. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns related to six delinquent student loans totaling approximately $150,570.
Despite acknowledging the debts, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve them.
The applicant's inaction over several years raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 5, 2022
Answer filedJun 3, 2022Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateDec 12, 2022

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Efforts to Resolve Debts
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 significant financial concerns under Guideline F due to the applicant's six delinquent student loan accounts totaling approximately $150,570. The applicant's lack of efforts to address these debts and his prioritization of other bills over his student loans led to a decision against granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has six still-delinquent student-loan accounts with the DOE totaling approximately $48,582, plus the one credit union charged off student loan totaling $101,988, for a combined total of approximately $150,570. $150,570	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant acknowledged that he chose to pay his normal bills to the exclusion of his student loans, even after December 2019, when he obtained his current position.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	Applicant made no efforts to address his student loans from August 2018 until March 2021.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to submit any documentation to verify any of the claims he has made regarding the efforts he purportedly made with the DOE.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant's financial problems were not under control, and the initial unverifiable efforts to fix his problem did not start until sometime in 2021.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant has not made efforts to address the loan to rehabilitate it.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant's apparent disinterest or inability in focusing on his student-loan accounts supports a conclusion that he also had a reluctance or unwillingness to satisfy those debts regardless of the ability to do so.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (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.