CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02812 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-02812

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/26/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeADP POSITION
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: Jeffrey T. Kent
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 39-year-old individual seeking a security clearance, facing allegations under multiple adjudicative guidelines, including Guideline B (foreign influence), Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Department of Defense (DOD) highlighted concerns regarding the applicant's connections to her mother, a Polish citizen residing in Cuba, as well as her history of financial difficulties and criminal charges.
The applicant admitted to several allegations, including her foreign connections and past financial issues, such as a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and multiple eviction judgments. She provided explanations for her financial circumstances, asserting that she had resolved many debts and had not engaged in criminal activity since 2016. However, she denied some allegations related to her criminal history and the circumstances surrounding her evictions, claiming that her actions were influenced by personal circumstances and that she had taken steps to improve her financial situation.
The administrative judge ruled that the applicant had mitigated concerns under Guideline B and Guideline J but failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns under Guideline E and Guideline F. The judge concluded that the applicant's ongoing financial issues and the nature of her personal conduct raised significant doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately denying her eligibility for access to sensitive information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · For Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 20-02812

deniedJun 26, 2023· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to unmitigated concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's deliberate omissions on her security clearance application regarding her criminal history and eviction judgments were central to the Guideline E concerns. Under Guideline F, a history of financial irresponsibility, including bankruptcy and multiple eviction judgments, was a significant factor.

The applicant had daily contact with her mother, a Polish citizen residing in Cuba, which raised Guideline B (Foreign Influence) concerns, though her mother had no direct ties to the Cuban government. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) concerns arose from arrests for battery in 2008 and multiple domestic violence charges in 2015 and 2016, all of which were dismissed or nolle prossed.

Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's deliberate omissions and history of financial mismanagement outweighed any positive factors, leading to the denial of her eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline B by demonstrating minimal risk from foreign influence due to her mother's lack of direct ties to the Cuban government.
The applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline J as all criminal charges against her were dismissed or nolle prossed, and she has not been involved in criminal activity since 2016.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant's efforts to resolve debts were not considered good-faith due to the timing and circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 22, 2021
Answer filedJan 18, 2022
Hearing heldApr 19, 2023Hearing convened as scheduled.
Decision dateJun 26, 2023

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Relevant Facts Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B

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 B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has daily contact with her mother, a Polish citizen living in Cuba, but determined that this relationship does not create a heightened risk or conflict of interest. The applicant's ties to her mother were mitigated by her deep ties to the United States through her children and her steady employment since 2018. Ultimately, the application for access to sensitive information was denied.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: U.S. Children · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has daily contact with her mother who is a Polish citizen living in Cuba, but her mother does not have direct ties to the Cuban government.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Cuba HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, specifically regarding the failure to disclose her arrests on her SF 86 application. The applicant admitted to the omission but claimed confusion regarding the questions. The judge did not find sufficient mitigation to overcome the concerns raised by the applicant's lack of candor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant failed to disclose her arrests on her SF 86 application, raising concerns about her honesty and reliability.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b–3.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on financial considerations under Guideline F, citing a history of financial issues including bankruptcy and eviction judgments. The applicant admitted to several debts, but the judge concluded that these concerns were not sufficiently mitigated, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant has a history of financial issues, including bankruptcy and eviction judgments, indicating a lack of financial responsibility.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
4.b–4.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
4.f	Applicant has a history of financial issues, including bankruptcy and eviction judgments, indicating a lack of financial responsibility. $45,000	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a history of criminal conduct, including arrests for battery and multiple domestic violence-related charges, all of which were dismissed or nolle prossed. Despite the applicant's admissions regarding these allegations, the overall outcome was a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information due to concerns about the applicant's criminal history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with battery in 2008, and multiple charges related to domestic violence in 2015 and 2016, all of which were dismissed or nolle prossed.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b–2.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.