CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02494 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02494

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/1/2023
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Nicholas T. Temple
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 57-year-old woman with a history of financial difficulties primarily stemming from marital issues. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose debts that had been charged off or sent to collections on her security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to omitting certain debts from her application but claimed these omissions were unintentional. She explained that while she was aware of her delinquent debts, she did not realize they had been charged off or sent to collections. The applicant provided evidence of her efforts to resolve her financial issues, including the sale of her house, which allowed her to pay off all delinquent debts listed in the SOR. She also demonstrated improved financial stability, maintaining savings and a budget.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that she had mitigated the financial concerns due to her proactive measures in addressing her debts. The judge found that the omissions on her application were unintentional, given the comprehensive information she had provided about her financial situation. Consequently, the judge granted the applicant a security clearance, emphasizing her current reliability and trustworthiness.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- 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. 21-02494

grantedDec 1, 2023· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old applicant was granted a security clearance after successfully mitigating concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant intentionally failed to disclose debts that were in collection or charged-off status on a February 2020 security clearance application. Specifically, it was noted that she did not disclose debts that had been turned over to collection, suspended, charged off, or canceled within the preceding seven years.

The applicant demonstrated significant mitigation. Her financial difficulties stemmed primarily from marital instability and circumstances largely beyond her control. Following her separation, she sold her house and used the proceeds to resolve all delinquent debts.

Crucially, the judge determined that the omissions on her security clearance application were unintentional, rather than deliberate. Given the resolution of her financial issues and the finding that her nondisclosures were not intentional, eligibility for a security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved all delinquent debts using proceeds from the sale of her house.
The financial difficulties were largely due to marital instability and circumstances beyond her control.
The applicant's omissions on the security clearance application were deemed unintentional.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Occurred Under Circumstances Unlikely to Recur.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Financial Counseling From a Legitimate Source and Is Resolving the Problem.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedInitiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 2, 2022
Answer filedMar 21, 2022
Hearing heldJul 17, 2023via video teleconference
Decision dateDec 1, 2023

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Marital Instability
Unintentional Omissions on Security Clearance Applications
Successful Resolution of Delinquent Debts Leading to Clearance 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant intentionally failed to disclose debts that were in charged off or collection status on her security clearance application. However, the judge concluded that the omission was unintentional and did not raise personal conduct security concerns, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Intentional failure to disclose bills that were in charged off or collection status.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Corrected Falsification Promptly

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's financial issues, including debts that were not disclosed on her security clearance application, were resolved through the sale of her home. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial stability would improve following her divorce, and thus granted her eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not disclose her debts that had been either turned over to collection, suspended, charged off, or cancelled in the past seven years, as required, on a security clearance application (SCA) completed in February 2020. $18,655	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b–1.j	9 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 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.