CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01053 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01053

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/25/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert J. Tuidar
Government Counsel: Rhett E. Petcher
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 52-year-old radiation technician employed by a defense contractor since October 2019, seeking a security clearance. 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 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,904, which the applicant admitted, except for one debt she initially disputed but later accepted responsibility for.
The applicant acknowledged her financial difficulties were due to several factors, including supporting her homeless stepfather during the COVID-19 pandemic, her husband's unemployment, and medical expenses for her daughter. She made some payments towards her debts and entered a payment plan for her largest debt. However, the administrative judge noted that while the applicant had taken limited action to address her debts, she did not demonstrate consistent communication with creditors or seek financial counseling. Regarding personal conduct, the applicant admitted to inaccuracies in her SF-86 but attributed them to confusion.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the security clearance, concluding that the applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns, which raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were significant and ongoing, and her actions did not adequately demonstrate a commitment to resolving them.
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. 22-01053

deniedApr 25, 2023· Hon. Robert J. Tuidar· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old radiation technician was denied a security clearance primarily due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons identified 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,904. While the applicant initially disputed one of these debts, she later accepted responsibility for it.

The judge found that the applicant failed to adequately resolve these debts and did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to maintain contact with creditors or seek financial counseling. These financial delinquencies raised concerns under Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

Although the applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) through the application of Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(b) and AG ¶ 20(d), the judge ultimately concluded that her financial issues raised significant doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,904, which she failed to resolve adequately.
She did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to maintain contact with creditors or seek financial counseling.
The judge concluded that her financial issues raised doubts about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile some circumstances affected her finances, she failed to act responsibly and neglected to remain in contact with creditors.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsShe made some recent payments on her debts, but they were limited and did not demonstrate overall resolution.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 19, 2022
Answer filedSep 19, 2022Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateApr 25, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Importance of Demonstrating Resolution of Financial Issues for Security 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,904. Despite the applicant's claims of responsibility and some payments made towards settling certain debts, the overall financial situation was deemed inconsistent with national security interests, resulting in a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 16 delinquent SOR debts, totaling approximately $14,904. $14,904	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant claimed SOR 1.f is not hers but later accepted responsibility for this debt. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b–1.p	14 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (12 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

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.