CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00417 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-00417

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/28/2023
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old former U.S. Army infantryman who sought a security clearance after serving honorably from 2007 to 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed security concerns under Guideline F, related to financial considerations, as outlined in a Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued in July 2021. The SOR identified two debts: a charged-off auto lease totaling approximately $39,263 and a past-due cell phone bill of $1,687.
The applicant admitted to both debts but provided explanations for their circumstances. He indicated that the auto lease debt arose when he deployed overseas, leaving a truck in his father's care, which was subsequently wrecked by his sister without permission. Despite his attempts to resolve the debt with the creditor, he faced challenges in confirming the status of the vehicle and the debt amount. The applicant also documented that the cell phone bill had been paid. The administrative judge found that the unusual nature of the debts, their age, and the applicant's efforts to address them mitigated the financial concerns. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting eligibility for access to classified information, citing the lack of other delinquent debts and the applicant's responsible financial behavior.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 21-00417

grantedJul 28, 2023· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 36-year-old veteran whose security clearance eligibility was reviewed under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to two specific debts. The Statement of Reasons cited a $39,263 charged-off account from an old auto lease and a $1,687 past-due cell phone bill placed for collection. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

However, the administrative judge found that mitigating conditions applied, specifically AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(d). The applicant's financial difficulties were largely attributed to circumstances beyond his control, including actions by a family member. Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve the debts and maintained an otherwise good credit history.

The judge concluded that the debts were isolated, old, and unlikely to recur. Consequently, the applicant's financial issues were deemed mitigated, and eligibility for a security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's financial issues were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, including a family member's actions.
The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve the debts and maintained good credit otherwise.
The debts were isolated, old, and unlikely to recur.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe debt occurred under unusual circumstances but is not fully resolved.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 2, 2021
Answer filedMar 10, 2022
Hearing heldMay 15, 2023via video teleconference
Decision dateJul 28, 2023

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had two financial concerns under Guideline F, including a charged-off auto lease and a past-due cell phone bill. Both debts were admitted by the applicant, but the judge concluded that the applicant had sufficiently mitigated the financial security concerns, resulting in a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR ¶ 1.a ($39,263) is a charged-off account related to an old auto lease. $39,263	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b ($1,687) is a past-due cell phone bill that has been placed for collection. $1,687	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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.