CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01738 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-01738

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/14/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Allison Marie
Case Summary
the financial situation led to the conclusion that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns.
The administrative judge ruled that while the applicant did not intentionally omit material information during the security investigation processes, his ongoing financial difficulties were significant enough to warrant denial of his security clearance. The judge noted that the applicant's financial issues, including a history of bankruptcy and substantial mortgage delinquency, raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Despite the applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances, such as caring for his children and experiencing a significant pay cut, the judge found that he had not demonstrated a proactive approach to resolving his financial problems or provided evidence of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation posed a risk to national security, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · 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. 21-01738

deniedFeb 14, 2023· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 59-year-old veteran was denied a security clearance primarily due to unmitigated financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), despite being cleared of issues under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons included allegations that the applicant had not made a mortgage payment since 2017 and had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection with the assistance of an attorney.

While the applicant did not intentionally omit material information during the security investigation, the judge found that his recurrent financial problems were not resolved. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c) were raised, but mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d) were also applied.

Ultimately, the denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to demonstrate any concrete steps taken to resolve his financial issues, including the ongoing lack of mortgage payments since 2017. This led to an unfavorable decision regarding his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's recurrent financial problems were not mitigated.
He failed to provide evidence of steps taken to resolve his financial issues.
The applicant has not made a mortgage payment since 2017.

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's financial problems were triggered by circumstances beyond his control, such as a significant pay cut.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceiving Financial CounselingThe applicant did not provide evidence of receiving financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

“Proof of an omission alone does not establish a deliberate falsification.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2021
Answer filedMar 20, 2021Applicant requested a decision based on the documentary record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 14, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Application of Mitigating Conditions in Financial Considerations Cases

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant did not intentionally omit material information during the security investigation process. However, the applicant's ongoing financial problems raised security concerns that were not mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant did not intentionally omit material information during the security investigation process.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.d	3 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 E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant faced significant financial issues, including a history of delinquent debts and a dismissed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, citing a lack of evidence for rehabilitation and ongoing financial problems.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Consequently, he consulted an attorney who helped him file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, as alleged in subparagraph 1.b. $81,000	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	As for the mortgage, Applicant has not made a mortgage payment since 2017. $97,977	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.f	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	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.