CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00328 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00328

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/5/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 22-00328) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old individual with a background in network security and military service, who sought a security clearance after being issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline J (criminal conduct), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline F (financial considerations). The core allegations included a felony conviction for larceny of checks and identity theft, as well as multiple delinquent debts totaling over $10,000.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to some of the allegations, including the criminal conduct and certain financial debts, while denying others. He expressed remorse for his actions, which he described as a significant lapse in judgment, and provided evidence of his efforts to resolve his financial issues, including paying off debts and maintaining a budget. However, he remained on a deferred sentence for his felony conviction, which was a critical factor in the judge's decision.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that while he had mitigated the financial concerns, he had not sufficiently addressed the criminal conduct and personal conduct issues. The judge noted that the applicant's ongoing probation and the nature of his past actions raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately denying his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 22-00328

deniedDec 5, 2023· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old male applicant with a network security and military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from a 2019 felony conviction for larceny of checks and identity theft, which led to a general discharge under honorable conditions from military service for misconduct. This conviction raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability.

The applicant was arrested in 2019 and charged with five felony offenses, ultimately pleading guilty to larceny and identity theft. He is currently serving a deferred sentence until February 2025, indicating ongoing criminal conduct concerns. His personal conduct was found to display untrustworthiness and questionable judgment.

While the applicant had a history of not paying debts, he resolved the specific delinquent medical debt of $151 and other debts listed in the Statement of Reasons prior to receiving it. However, these mitigating financial actions were insufficient to overcome the serious concerns related to his felony conviction and ongoing deferred sentence, resulting in the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a felony conviction for larceny and identity theft, which raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.
He is currently on a deferred sentence until February 2025, indicating ongoing criminal conduct concerns.
The applicant's personal conduct displayed untrustworthiness and questionable judgment, leading to his general discharge from the military.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Parole or Probation
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Beyond the Individual's Control Contributed to Financial Problems
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 21, 2022
Answer filedApr 26, 2022
Hearing heldJun 7, 2023via video teleconference
Decision dateDec 5, 2023

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Personal Conduct Concerns Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigating Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns, specifically regarding untrustworthiness and questionable judgment stemming from a 2019 conviction. The applicant's conduct was deemed not mitigated, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant displayed untrustworthiness, questionable judgment, and unreliability, which led to his 2019 conviction and general discharge under honorable conditions for misconduct.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	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 resolved his financial debts, including a $151 medical debt and five delinquent consumer debts totaling $10,292. Despite these resolutions, the overall financial considerations were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has a $151 delinquent medical debt that he acknowledged but has since resolved. $151	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.b	Applicant has a history of not paying his debts but has since resolved the debts listed in the SOR prior to receiving it. $10,292	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.c–3.f	4 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, specifically regarding his guilty plea to larceny of checks and identity theft. The applicant's criminal behavior and the circumstances surrounding it raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in 2019 and charged with five felony offenses, and he pled guilty to larceny of checks and identity theft.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.