CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00255 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00255

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/30/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Allison Marie
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had served in the U.S. military from 2002 until his discharge in 2017, which was characterized as a bad conduct discharge. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct), F (financial considerations), and J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included multiple charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) related to disobeying lawful orders, fraternization, false statements, and assault, as well as significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,500.
The applicant admitted to having inappropriate relationships with junior servicemembers and described incidents of assault, while also acknowledging that he lied during the investigation due to fear of repercussions for his military career. He provided some evidence of payment arrangements for certain debts but failed to submit proof of payments or adequate documentation for many of the debts listed in the SOR. The applicant expressed remorse for his past conduct and indicated a desire to improve his life and that of his family.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns associated with his criminal conduct and financial issues. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and confidence in individuals granted access to classified information, stating that the applicant's past behavior and ongoing financial difficulties raised significant doubts about his reliability and judgment, ultimately leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 22-00255

deniedMar 30, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee and former military member was denied a security clearance due to unmitigated concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,500. These included debts to collection companies on behalf of financial institutions specializing in military servicemember loans, a military exchange credit card, an appliance store, banks, medical providers, and an insurance company.

Beyond financial issues, the applicant faced allegations of personal and criminal misconduct. The SOR alleged that the applicant lied in the military to avoid punishment and was less than completely forthright during the security clearance process. Furthermore, he was accused of falsifying his SF-86 by failing to report debts turned over to collection agencies. His history of criminal conduct resulted in a bad conduct discharge from the military.

The administrative judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or mitigation for these concerns. The financial issues were recent and ongoing, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. His criminal and personal conduct also indicated significant concerns regarding his judgment and compliance with rules, ultimately leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not mitigate security concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J.
The applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's criminal conduct and personal conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and compliance with rules.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(e)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 22, 2022
Answer filedMay 3, 2022Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 30, 2023

Cite For

Unmitigated Concerns Under Guidelines E, F, and J
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Financial Distress as an Indicator of Reliability Issues

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 lied during the military process to avoid punishment and was not completely forthright during the security clearance process. The allegations under Guideline E were ruled against the applicant, leading to a denied security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant lied in the military in an attempt to avoid punishment, and he has been less than completely forthright in the security clearance process.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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 judge found multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,500 against the applicant, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims of attempting to resolve some debts, the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under this guideline, indicating insufficient evidence of mitigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges 11 delinquent debts with balances totaling about $35,500. $35,500	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b allege debts of $11,943 and $6,093 to a collection company on behalf of a financial institution that specializes to loans to military servicemembers. $11,943	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a delinquent debt of $5,014 for a military exchange credit card. $5,014	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a delinquent debt of $1,786 to a collection company on behalf of a financial institution that specializes to loans to military servicemembers (different collection company and different financial institution than alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.e). $1,786	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant admitted owing the $1,289 delinquent debt to an appliance store (SOR ¶ 1.e). $1,289	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a delinquent debt to a bank.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.g alleges a delinquent debt of $291 to a bank. $291	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	SOR ¶ 1.h alleges a debt of $6,041 to the same financial institution. $6,041	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.i	SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j allege medical debts of $1,444 and $941. $1,444	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.k	SOR ¶ 1.k alleges a $292 debt to an insurance company. $292	For 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegation regarding falsification of the SF 86 related to undisclosed debts. The applicant's conduct was deemed to reflect questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified the SF 86 when he failed to report his debts under the specific question regarding debts turned over to a collection agency.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under less than honorable conditions	—	—

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.