CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03691 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-03691

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/17/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-03691) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Raashid S. Williams
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 49-year-old individual who had served in both the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army, with an honorable discharge from the former and a less favorable discharge from the latter. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging that the applicant had thirteen delinquent accounts totaling approximately $41,500, primarily related to student loans, medical bills, and charged-off consumer accounts.
In response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to the majority of the allegations but provided explanations for some debts, including disputing certain accounts and claiming that others had been removed from his credit report. He indicated that he was working with a financial coach to organize his debts but had not established a repayment plan or taken significant steps to resolve his tax issues from 2018. The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a budget, and while he claimed to be disputing several accounts, he did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the financial concerns raised. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues indicated a lack of self-control and judgment, which could jeopardize his reliability and trustworthiness in handling classified information. The judge noted that the applicant's admissions and the absence of a structured plan to address his debts led to the decision to deny eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 20-03691

deniedJan 17, 2023· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old male with prior military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $41,500 in delinquent accounts. The Statement of Reasons detailed several financial concerns, including a collection account for $11,076 that the applicant disputed, and multiple Department of Education student loan collection accounts for which he submitted letters stating he was relieved of the obligation to pay.

Additional allegations included a $2,929 collection account that the applicant also disputed, a $450 charged-off account he admitted but disputed, and a $432 charged-off account he attributed to his ex-wife. The applicant also had medical accounts totaling $152 and $126 each, which he stated should have been covered by the VA.

While the applicant mitigated some student loan debts, the judge found insufficient evidence to address the overall financial issues. The denial was based on his inability to satisfy debts, failure to establish repayment plans or work with creditors, and lack of sufficient evidence of financial counseling or a budget.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has approximately $41,500 in delinquent accounts, indicating an inability to satisfy debts.
He failed to establish a repayment plan or work with creditors to resolve his debts.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of financial counseling or a budget to mitigate his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant mitigated some student loan debts due to predatory lending practices.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial CounselingThe applicant did not participate in credit counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not initiate or adhere to a repayment plan.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 1, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Decision dateJan 17, 2023

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Establishing a Repayment Plan for Debts
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on National Security 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 multiple financial concerns against the applicant, including several collection accounts and charged-off debts. While some student loan debts were found to be mitigated, the overall financial situation was deemed inconsistent with the national interest, leading to a denial of the application for clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	A collection account in the amount of $11,076, Applicant stated that he was not aware of this account and he is disputing it. $11,076	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Collection accounts for Department of Education student loans, Applicant submitted a letter stating he was relieved of his obligation to pay.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Collection accounts for Department of Education student loans, Applicant submitted a letter stating he was relieved of his obligation to pay.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Collection accounts for Department of Education student loans, Applicant submitted a letter stating he was relieved of his obligation to pay.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Collection accounts for Department of Education student loans, Applicant submitted a letter stating he was relieved of his obligation to pay.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Collection accounts for Department of Education student loans, Applicant submitted a letter stating he was relieved of his obligation to pay.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	A collection account in the amount of $2,929, Applicant stated he was not aware of this account and is disputing it. $2,929	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	A charged-off account in the amount of $450, Applicant admitted the debt and stated that he is disputing the account. $450	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	A charged-off account in the amount of $432, Applicant stated that this was his ex-wife’s account that she opened in his name. $432	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Medical accounts for $152 and $126, Applicant stated these were for hospital visits and should have been paid by the VA.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Medical accounts for $152 and $126, Applicant stated these were for hospital visits and should have been paid by the VA.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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.