CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00189 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00189

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/12/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old electronic maintenance technician employed by a defense contractor since January 2022. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed his application for a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,797. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined the applicant's financial issues, including a repossessed automobile loan and several other delinquent accounts, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to three of the allegations related to his financial difficulties but denied others, claiming he was unaware of some accounts. He indicated intentions to resolve his debts but failed to provide any documentation to support his claims or demonstrate any payments made toward the delinquent accounts. The administrative judge noted the absence of evidence showing that the applicant's financial situation had improved or that he had taken steps to address his debts.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns regarding his financial considerations. The judge emphasized the lack of evidence demonstrating that the applicant's financial problems were under control and determined that granting a security clearance was not clearly consistent with the national interest.
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. 23-00189

deniedDec 12, 2023· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $20,797 in unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed five delinquent accounts. These included an automobile loan with a $12,259 unpaid balance, which was charged off after the vehicle's involuntary repossession in September 2020.

Additionally, the applicant had a personal note loan account with a $2,791 unpaid balance that went to collection after being over 60 days past due. Two medical accounts, with unpaid balances of $309 and $259 respectively, were also placed for collection. The final account, an unspecified type, had a $5,179 unpaid balance and was both placed for collection and charged off.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide documentation of any efforts to resolve these debts or present a repayment plan. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial problems were not under control, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, and therefore granting a clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had five unresolved delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,797.
He failed to provide documentation of any efforts to resolve his debts or a repayment plan.
The applicant's financial problems were not under control, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 2, 2023
Answer filedMar 9, 2023Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateDec 12, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Financial Behavior
Lack of a Repayment Plan for Debts as a Basis for Denial

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including an automobile loan, personal loan, and medical debts, all of which were unpaid and placed for collection. The applicant's failure to resolve these debts and lack of documentation supporting any repayment efforts led to a decision against granting security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR ¶ 1.a. is an automobile loan account with an unpaid balance of $12,259 that was placed for collection when the vehicle was involuntarily repossessed in September 2020 and eventually charged off. $12,259	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b. is a personal note loan-account with an unpaid balance of $2,791 that was placed for collection after being over 60 days past due. $2,791	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c. is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $309 that was placed for collection. $309	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d. is an unspecified type of account with an unpaid balance of $5,179 that was placed for collection and charged off. $5,179	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	SOR ¶ 1.e. is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $259 that was placed for collection. $259	Against 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.