CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02447 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02447

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/28/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance and faced allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct) as outlined in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Department of Defense. The core allegations included delinquent debts totaling over $40,000 and a claim of intentional falsification on his security clearance application regarding these debts. Additionally, the applicant was discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps under less than honorable conditions, which was also noted as a concern under Guideline J (criminal conduct).
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the financial allegations but denied intentionally falsifying his security clearance application, claiming he was unaware of the debts at the time of completion. He attributed his financial difficulties to periods of unemployment and underemployment, and he expressed a willingness to repay his debts. The applicant provided some evidence of efforts to address his financial issues, including settling one debt and maintaining a budget, but he did not provide documentation for all claims made regarding his debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that while he had mitigated concerns related to personal conduct and criminal conduct, he failed to mitigate the financial considerations. The judge noted that the applicant's lack of awareness of his debts did not absolve him of responsibility, and the ongoing nature of his financial issues raised concerns about his reliability and judgment. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 21-02447

deniedSep 28, 2023· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant intentionally falsified his May 2019 SCA, had two delinquent student loans totaling $17,034, two delinquent consumer debts totaling $22,395, a delinquent $68 medical account, and an auto loan in collection for $18,471. Additionally, he was discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps for reasons less than honorable.

Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), and AG ¶ 31(e). While mitigating conditions were applied under AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 32(a), and AG ¶ 32(d), these were insufficient to overcome the primary concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to mitigate financial considerations under Guideline F. The judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible actions regarding his financial obligations, and his unresolved delinquent debts continued to raise doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated concerns related to personal conduct under Guideline E.
The applicant mitigated concerns related to criminal conduct under Guideline J.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 31(e)appliedDischarge From the Armed Forces for Reasons Less Than 'honorable'

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible actions regarding his financial obligations.
AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 7, 2022
Answer filedJul 25, 2022
Hearing heldApr 26, 2023via video teleconference
Decision dateSep 28, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct Concerns
Impact of Financial Obligations on Reliability and Trustworthiness Assessments

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant intentionally falsified his response to section 26 of his May 2019 security clearance application regarding his financial delinquencies. The applicant denied the allegation, but the judge ruled against him, concluding that the falsification raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally falsified his response to section 26 of his May 2019 SCA.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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 that the applicant had multiple financial issues, including delinquent student loans, consumer debts, a medical account, and an auto loan in collection. While some debts were found to be mitigated, the overall financial situation raised significant concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had two delinquent student loans, totaling $17,034. $17,034	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant had two delinquent consumer debts, totaling $22,395. $22,395	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant had a delinquent $68 medical account. $68	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant had an auto loan in collection for $18,471. $18,471	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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 was discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps for reasons less than honorable. The applicant did not admit or deny the allegation, which was construed as a denial. The judge ruled against the applicant on this allegation, contributing to the overall denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps for reasons less than honorable.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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.