CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01442 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01442

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/30/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old financial analyst employed by a federal contractor. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F, related to financial considerations. The SOR detailed five delinquent student loans totaling approximately $90,000, which the applicant admitted to owing. The applicant's financial difficulties began after her student loan deferments ended in 2014, and she struggled with low-paying jobs and unemployment until securing her current position in 2018.
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged her financial obligations but claimed that her priority was to support her elderly parents financially, which limited her ability to address her student loans. She provided a monthly budget indicating a surplus but did not account for any loan payments. The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial issues were ongoing and that she had not taken sufficient steps to resolve her debts, including declining settlement offers from a collection agency. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she had not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns, resulting in a denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 22-01442

deniedMay 30, 2023· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old financial analyst was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged five delinquent student loans totaling approximately $90,000. These debts were established through multiple credit reports from December 2021 to January 2023, the applicant's personal subject interview in December 2021, her answers to interrogatories in April 2022, and her admissions in response to the SOR.

The applicant admitted receiving settlement offers for all five loans in July 2022, which expired in August 2022 without her commitment. She has not since entered into an agreement with the collector for her private student loans, leaving these debts unresolved. Her financial difficulties reportedly began in 2014 after her student loan deferments ended, following her master’s program.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of the five delinquent student loans, her failure to provide a viable plan for addressing these obligations or demonstrate effective debt management, and her decision to decline settlement offers, which indicated a lack of priority in resolving the debts.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to having five delinquent student loans totaling approximately $90,000.
She failed to provide a viable plan to address her financial obligations or demonstrate effective debt management.
The applicant declined settlement offers for her debts, indicating a lack of priority in resolving them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedAug 22, 2022
Answer filedSep 12, 2022
Hearing heldJan 23, 2023via video teleconferencing
Decision dateMay 30, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Effective Debt Management
Lack of a Viable Plan to Address Financial Obligations

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 against the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations, specifically five delinquent student loans totaling approximately $90,000. The applicant admitted to the debts but failed to demonstrate a viable plan to resolve them, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleged five delinquent student loans totaling approximately $90,000. $90,000	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The debts are established by credit reports from December 2021, June 2022, August 2022, and January 2023; Applicant’s personal subject interview (PSI) with an investigator in December 2021; her answers to interrogatories in April 2022; and her SOR admissions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted receiving settlement offers for all five loans in July 2022, which expired in August 2022 without Applicant committing to them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant has not entered into an agreement with the collector holding her private student loans since then. These debts are unresolved.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's financial difficulties began after her student loan deferments ended in 2014 shortly after she finished attending classes for her master’s program.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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.