CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00137 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-00137

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/12/2024
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Daniel P. O'Reilley
Case Summary
Applicant was a 58-year-old electrician who sought a security clearance after being implicated in his wife's embezzlement of over $500,000 from her employer between 2012 and 2020. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations), primarily due to the unexplained affluence associated with the joint accounts held by Applicant and his wife.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to the allegations but maintained that he was unaware of his wife's criminal activities, as she managed their finances. He provided evidence of a modest lifestyle, including living in a typical working-class home and driving older economy cars. Applicant settled a civil suit related to his wife's embezzlement for $275,000, which he paid by selling inherited land, and he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to address debts incurred due to his wife's actions. The administrative judge found Applicant's explanations credible and noted the absence of indicators of lavish spending, concluding that he had mitigated the security concerns.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of Applicant, granting him a security clearance. The decision emphasized that while Applicant could have been more diligent in monitoring his finances, the lack of evidence indicating his complicity in his wife's actions and his efforts to rectify the financial situation supported the conclusion that he posed no security risk.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · For 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. 22-00137

grantedSep 12, 2024· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old electrician was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). These concerns arose from his wife's embezzlement of over $500,000 from her employer, with some funds deposited into a joint account. The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant failed to monitor his bank accounts, which were used as a conduit for the embezzlement, and that the deposits created an unexplained affluence concern.

However, the applicant credibly demonstrated he had no knowledge of his wife's criminal activities. He took significant mitigating steps, including settling a civil suit for $275,000 and filing for bankruptcy. The judge found no evidence of a lavish lifestyle or unexplained affluence on the applicant's part.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant had successfully mitigated the security concerns, applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 17(e). Consequently, the applicant was granted eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant credibly explained his lack of knowledge about his wife's embezzlement activities.
He took significant steps to mitigate financial concerns, including settling a civil suit and filing for bankruptcy.
There was no evidence of a lavish lifestyle or unexplained affluence.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Efforts at RestitutionThe applicant paid $275,000 in restitution through the sale of inherited land.
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant settled a civil suit, demonstrating efforts to mitigate personal conduct concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 22, 2022
Answer filedMar 3, 2023
Hearing heldMay 16, 2024
Decision dateSep 12, 2024

Cite For

Credibility of Applicant's Explanation Regarding Financial Conduct
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Through Restitution
Application of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's failure to monitor his bank accounts allowed his wife to embezzle funds, but credited his explanation of ignorance regarding the conduct. The applicant was not charged with any crime and took steps to mitigate the financial concerns. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on the personal conduct allegation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to monitor his bank accounts, which allowed his wife to use them as a conduit for embezzlement from her employer.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's financial concerns stemmed from his wife's embezzlement of over $500,000, which raised issues of unexplained affluence. However, the applicant credibly explained his lack of awareness of the embezzlement and took significant steps to mitigate the financial issues, leading to a decision in his favor.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s wife embezzled more than $500,000 from her employer and deposited the money in an account that was in both her name and Applicant’s name, generating an unexplained affluence security concern for Applicant. $500,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(g) unexplained affluence	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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.