CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02579 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-02579

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/27/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 56-year-old security officer who applied for a security clearance on July 13, 2022. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on January 9, 2023, citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's delinquent debts totaling $60,334 and his failure to disclose these debts on his security clearance application.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to all but one of the alleged debts, claiming they were incurred by his spouse during a period of unemployment. He denied knowledge of the debts until informed during a background interview and asserted that he planned to address them in divorce proceedings. However, he provided no evidence of efforts to resolve the debts or any documentation to support his claims. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's admissions and the credit reports confirmed the existence of the debts, and he failed to demonstrate any mitigating circumstances.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns or the personal conduct issues. The judge emphasized that the applicant's lack of responsibility for the debts and failure to take action to resolve them raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 22-02579

deniedJun 27, 2023· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old security officer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unmitigated delinquent debts totaling $60,334 and the applicant's failure to disclose these debts on his security clearance application.

The Statement of Reasons detailed thirteen separate delinquent accounts. These included charged-off credit accounts from department stores and banks, as well as multiple accounts placed for collection by various banks and a credit card company. Specific examples included an $18,527 charged-off department store account, a $10,063 charged-off bank account, and several other collection accounts ranging from $215 to $6,255.

The judge found the applicant's explanations for the debts unconvincing and noted a lack of evidence demonstrating efforts to resolve them. The failure to disclose any delinquent debts on the application further raised questions about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate financial concerns related to delinquent debts.
The applicant did not disclose any delinquent debts on his security clearance application, raising questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's explanations regarding the debts were found unconvincing and unsupported by evidence of efforts to resolve them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“The clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 9, 2023
Answer filedMar 6, 2023Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJun 27, 2023

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Failure to Disclose Debts on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Credibility Issues Regarding Applicant's Explanations for Financial Conduct

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant failed to disclose delinquent debts on his security clearance application. The applicant's denial of the falsification allegation was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant denied the falsification allegation under Guideline E (SOR ¶ 2.a).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 several charged-off accounts and accounts in collection, totaling over $60,000. The applicant admitted most debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns, resulting in a decision against the applicant on all but one subparagraph.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR ¶ 1.a ($18,527) is a credit account that has been charged off by a department store. $18,527	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b ($10,063) is an account that has been charged off by a bank. $10,063	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c ($6,255) is an account placed for collection by a bank. $6,255	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d ($5,822) is an account that has been charged off by a bank. $5,822	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	SOR ¶ 1.e ($5,036), 1.f ($4,352) and 1.g ($2,287) are accounts placed with the same collection agency by three separate banks. $5,036	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.f	SOR ¶ 1.f ($4,352) is an account placed with the same collection agency by a bank. $4,352	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.g	SOR ¶ 1.g ($2,287) is an account placed with the same collection agency by a bank. $2,287	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.h	SOR ¶ 1.h ($2,286) is an account placed for collection by a bank. $2,286	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.i	SOR ¶ 1.i ($1,957) is an account placed for collection by a bank. $1,957	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.j	SOR ¶ 1.j ($1,879) is a credit account placed for collection by a department store. $1,879	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.k	SOR ¶ 1.k ($1,087) is an account placed for collection by a credit card company. $1,087	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.l	SOR ¶ 1.l ($568) is an account placed for collection by a bank. $568	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.m	SOR ¶ 1.m ($215), which Applicant denies without further explanation, is a cable account placed for collection. $215	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

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.