CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01804 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01804

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/28/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 22-01804) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
Applicant, a 45-year-old former U.S. Navy service member, sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations) due to four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,719. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on December 13, 2022, citing concerns about the applicant's financial obligations and his failure to address them in a timely manner.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all four delinquent accounts but did not provide any documentation or substantial explanation for his financial situation. He claimed that he had forgotten to pay the debts and had been financially overextended due to personal expenses, including his wedding. Although he indicated plans to resolve the debts following a raise at work, the evidence showed that he only began making payments on two of the accounts after the SOR was issued, while the other two remained unresolved.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of responsible action to address his financial obligations. The judge noted that the applicant's financial issues persisted despite having the means to resolve them, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness in safeguarding classified information. 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. 22-01804

deniedJul 28, 2023· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old former U.S. Navy member was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,719. These included three charged-off accounts with a federal credit union, delinquent since 2019, for approximately $14,337, $5,627, and $500 respectively. Additionally, the applicant owed approximately $255 to a collection agency for an account referred in 2018 by a bank.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to take responsible action to address these financial obligations until his security clearance was jeopardized. Specifically, he did not begin making payments on two of the delinquent debts until after the SOR was issued.

This delay in addressing his financial distress raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not begin to pay on two delinquent debts until after the SOR was issued.
He failed to demonstrate responsible action to address his financial obligations until his security clearance was at risk.
The applicant's financial distress raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual entrusted to safeguard sensitive and classified information is expected to act in a financially responsible manner.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2022
Answer filedDec 22, 2022Applicant requested a determination on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateJul 28, 2023

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Timing of Debt Payments as a Relevant Consideration
Lack of Evidence for Responsible Financial Behavior

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 that the applicant had four delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,719, with insufficient evidence of efforts to resolve these debts. Despite some payments made after the issuance of the SOR, the applicant's financial delinquencies were deemed unresolved, leading to a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to a federal credit union in the approximate amounts of $14,337, for a charged-off account that became delinquent in 2019. $14,337	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to a federal credit union in the approximate amount of $5,627, for a charged-off account that became delinquent in 2019. $5,627	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to a federal credit union in the approximate amount of $500, for a charged-off account that became delinquent in 2019. $500	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency in the approximate amount of $255 for an account referred for collection in 2018 by a bank. $255	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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.