CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01443 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01443

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/10/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 67-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F, related to financial considerations. The core allegations included the applicant's failure to file federal income tax returns for several years and outstanding tax liabilities for multiple tax years, as well as two debts listed in the SOR.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to having tax issues but claimed that he believed his wife was handling their taxes. He had retained a tax company to address his back taxes and stated that he would pay any owed amounts. However, he denied owing the specific debts listed in the SOR, asserting that he had never had the credit card in question and believed it may have been opened fraudulently. The applicant provided evidence of his financial stability, including significant retirement savings, but acknowledged the ongoing tax issues.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR. The judge emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in maintaining national security and found that the applicant's explanations did not alleviate the risks associated with his financial history. 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. 22-01443

deniedOct 10, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 67-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's failure to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 through 2020, and unpaid federal income taxes for 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Additionally, the applicant had a charged-off credit card debt of $20,271 and a $53 medical debt in collection.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, specifically regarding a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. The administrative judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the charged-off credit card debt or demonstrate responsible financial management.

The judge found the applicant's assumption that his wife was handling tax obligations to be irresponsible, which raised doubts about his judgment and reliability. Despite a long career supporting the military and good job performance, the applicant's financial conduct led to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2016 and had unpaid taxes for multiple years.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the charged-off credit card debt or demonstrate responsible financial management.
The applicant's assumption that his wife was handling taxes was deemed irresponsible, raising doubts about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns or Failure to Pay Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax as Required

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure to comply with tax laws suggests that an applicant has a problem with abiding by well-established government rules and systems.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2022
Answer filedDec 12, 2022
Hearing heldAug 30, 2023
Decision dateOct 10, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Tax Compliance for Security Clearance Eligibility
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Reliability and Judgment Assessments

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 had a $20,271 charged-off credit card debt and a $53 medical debt in collection. While the medical debt was resolved in favor of the applicant, the credit card debt was ruled against him, leading to a denial of his security clearance due to unresolved financial concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	not filed his federal income tax returns when they were due for tax years 2016 through 2020 and not paying his federal income taxes when they were due for tax years 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	$20,271 charged-off credit card debt $20,271	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.d	$53 medical debt in collection $53	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—

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.