CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02000 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 22-02000

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/27/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
the financial difficulties to a combination of unemployment and poor financial management.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns related to criminal conduct, drug involvement, financial considerations, and personal conduct. The judge noted the applicant's extensive history of criminal activity, including multiple arrests and substance misuse, which raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. Despite the applicant's claims of having changed his life and intentions to resolve his financial issues, the judge found insufficient evidence to demonstrate a consistent pattern of responsible behavior or compliance with legal obligations. The applicant's admissions regarding his past conduct and ongoing financial difficulties ultimately led to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 22-02000

deniedMar 27, 2024· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old systems administrator was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal activity, unresolved financial issues, and substance misuse.

Specifically, the applicant had a criminal record spanning from 2010 to 2021, including arrests for assault, disorderly conduct, driving while impaired, and multiple drug and firearm-related charges in 2020. He also threatened his child's mother on several occasions between 2017 and 2020. Financially, he failed to file federal income tax returns for multiple years, accruing approximately $18,237 in federal tax debt and $14,179 in state tax debt, evidenced by a 2022 lien. Additional debts included a $31 medical bill, a $4,136 wireless account, a $14,335 auto loan, a $346 cable account, and a $1,300 electric bill. A co-signed car loan also resulted in repossession in 2021. Furthermore, the applicant admitted to using marijuana from 2009 to 2019.

Despite claims of rehabilitation, the judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of criminal conduct from 2010 to 2021, including multiple arrests and charges.
The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for several years and had significant tax debts.
The applicant admitted to ongoing substance misuse, including marijuana use, despite previous probation conditions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedCriminal ConductEvidence of criminal conduct, regardless of formal charges.
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug InvolvementIllegal use of controlled substances raises questions about reliability.
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedFinancial ConsiderationsInability to satisfy debts raises questions about reliability.
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFinancial ConsiderationsFailure to file income tax returns as required.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 10, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 19, 2023via video conference
Decision dateMar 27, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Substance Misuse Concerns Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline H

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation of threatening physical harm to his child's mother. The applicant admitted to the allegation but did not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the security concerns raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant threatened physical harm to his child’s mother on several occasions between 2017 and June 2020.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
4.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including failure to file federal and state income tax returns and various debts in collection. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on these financial allegations, indicating significant unresolved financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns, as required, for at least tax years 2012 through 2017, 2019, and 2021.	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.c	It also alleged he is indebted to the federal government for delinquent taxes of approximately $18,237 for tax years 2016 through 2020. $18,237	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	—	—	—
3.d	It also alleged he is indebted to the state tax authority, as evidenced by a tax lien entered against him in September 2022 in the approximate amount of $14,179. $14,179	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant also has a $31 delinquent medical debt. $31	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.g	Applicant co-signed this loan and the car was repossessed in February 2021, when he was on house arrest and could not make the monthly payments. (low confidence)	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.h	SOR ¶ 3.h is a wireless account in collection for $4,136. $4,136	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.i	SOR ¶ 3.i is an auto loan in collection for $14,335. $14,335	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.r	SOR ¶ 3.r is a cable account in collection for $346. $346	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.s	SOR ¶ 3.s is an electric bill with an apartment complex in collection for $1,300. $1,300	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from approximately October 2009 to October 2019. The use of marijuana was noted to have occurred while the applicant was prohibited from such use due to probation conditions. The overall outcome was a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, from approximately October 2009 to October 2019.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, indicating a significant history of criminal involvement from 2010 to 2021. The applicant admitted to multiple charges, including battery, assault, DWI, and drug-related offenses, which contributed to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of criminal involvement between 2010 and 2021.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In June 2013, Applicant was arrested and charged with second degree assault and disorderly conduct.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	In March 2014, Applicant was charged with failure to appear in court for the 2013 charges.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In April 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired by alcohol (DWI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	In June 2020, Applicant was arrested and charged with controlled dangerous substance (CDS), distribution with a firearm, drug trafficking, CDS possession with intent to distribute narcotic, loaded handgun in vehicle, loaded handgun on person, handgun in vehicle, and handgun on person.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	In February 2021, Applicant was arrested on a bench warrant in connection with these charges for violating the terms of his house arrest.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.