CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01262 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01262

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/28/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Tovah A. Minster
Case Summary
the security clearance application only one delinquent account, failing to report the additional 15 accounts totaling approximately $25,000. Although she denied intentionally omitting this information, she did not provide any explanation or evidence to support her claim. The administrative judge found that the applicant's failure to disclose accurate financial information raised concerns under Guideline E regarding her personal conduct.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she did not mitigate the security concerns related to financial considerations and personal conduct. Despite attributing her financial difficulties to her unemployment, the judge noted that the applicant had been employed since January 2015 but had not taken any steps to address her delinquent debts. The absence of evidence showing any efforts to resolve her financial issues, coupled with her failure to provide a reasonable plan for repayment, led to the determination that she had not acted responsibly. Consequently, the applicant was denied 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. 23-01262

deniedMar 28, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 66-year-old woman was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 16 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $27,000, and the intentional omission of adverse financial information from her March 2022 security clearance application.

The applicant admitted to the 16 delinquent debts and to not taking responsible actions to address them. The judge found that she failed to provide an accurate description of her financial situation in her application.

Crucially, there was no evidence presented of any efforts to resolve these debts or communicate with creditors regarding the delinquent accounts. Consequently, the applicant was found ineligible for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to having 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,000, which she failed to address responsibly.
She intentionally omitted relevant financial information in her security clearance application, failing to provide an accurate description of her financial situation.
There was no evidence of any debt-resolution efforts or communication with creditors regarding her delinquent accounts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant filed an undated response admitting to the debts.
Hearing held—Decision made based on the written record.
Decision dateMar 28, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Disclose Relevant Financial Information Under Guideline E
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Concerns

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 that the applicant intentionally omitted significant financial information in her March 2022 security clearance application. This omission raised concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally omitted adverse financial information in March 2022.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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 that the applicant had 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,000, which have remained unpaid since at least 2014. Despite admitting to these debts, the applicant failed to provide evidence of any efforts to resolve them, leading to a decision against her under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,000. $27,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b–1.p	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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.