CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01233 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01233

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/24/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 33-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had been employed since June 2018. He faced security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) due to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,000, which were attributed to financial difficulties stemming from his divorce. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons detailing these concerns, and the applicant responded by requesting a hearing.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to having financial problems and acknowledged responsibility for his debts but had not made payments on the debts listed in the Statement of Reasons. He indicated that he would pay his debts if creditors cooperated and mentioned a garnishment order against him for one of the debts. However, he had not sought financial counseling and did not provide evidence of a proactive approach to resolving his financial issues. The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay his debts, leading to doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. The judge emphasized that the applicant's financial issues were recent and unresolved, which continued to raise questions about his suitability for a security clearance. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 22-01233

deniedAug 24, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $23,000 in unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons alleged a history of financial problems and delinquent debts, none of which the applicant had paid. These ongoing issues raised concerns about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

The administrative judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible financial behavior or repayment efforts. While the applicant acknowledged his debts and attributed them to his divorce, his stated intentions to pay in the future were deemed insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

Ultimately, the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information. The decision highlighted that the financial issues were recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not demonstrate a track record of responsible financial behavior or repayment efforts.
The applicant's financial issues are recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's intentions to pay debts in the future were not sufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant attributed his financial problems to his divorce but failed to prove he acted responsibly under the circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 10, 2022
Answer filedNov 17, 2022
Hearing heldAug 9, 2023
Decision dateAug 24, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Behavior
Impact of Recent Financial Problems on Reliability and Trustworthiness

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has a history of financial problems and delinquent debts totaling about $23,000, which remain unpaid. The applicant's financial issues were deemed to cast doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a decision against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of financial problems and delinquent debts totaling about $23,000. $23,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant did not pay any of the debts alleged in the SOR. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant's financial issues continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. $0	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.i	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against 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.