CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01581 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01581

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/27/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old individual who had served honorably in the U.S. Navy and was employed as a master mechanic for a DOD contractor. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations involved five charged-off consumer debts totaling $96,441, which the applicant denied in his response to the SOR.
The applicant admitted to some financial irresponsibility contributing to his debts, particularly during a period of separation from his spouse. He claimed to have hired a debt consolidation company in 2018 to manage his debts but did not provide documentation to support this assertion. While he had resolved some debts, significant amounts remained unresolved, and he failed to provide evidence of his efforts to address these issues. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's financial problems raised concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. The judge found that the applicant's ongoing financial issues continued to cast doubt on his trustworthiness and reliability, and he had not established the necessary mitigating conditions to warrant a favorable security clearance decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Withdrawn
- 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. 23-01581

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

Summary

A 40-year-old male applicant with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The primary issue involved unresolved financial problems totaling over $96,000, stemming from multiple charged-off debts.

Specifically, the applicant had two personal loans charged off for $54,321 and $15,488, respectively. Additionally, a credit card debt of $12,668 and a store credit card debt of $7,603 were charged off but subsequently settled and paid. Another charged-off account for $6,361 was paid for less than the full balance.

Despite some debts being resolved, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate overall financial responsibility or efforts to address the significant outstanding debts. The applicant acknowledged his financial irresponsibility contributed to these delinquencies, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple charged-off debts totaling over $96,000, indicating financial irresponsibility.
He did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate efforts to resolve significant debts.
The applicant acknowledged his financial irresponsibility contributed to his delinquent debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond Control Contributed to Financial Problems
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial Counseling
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2023
Answer filedSep 5, 2023
Hearing heldJun 27, 2024
Decision dateJun 27, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
Failure to Provide Documentation Supporting Financial Responsibility
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 that the applicant had multiple charged-off debts totaling $96,441, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. While some debts were settled, the applicant's overall financial irresponsibility and lack of documentation for claims of debt management led to a decision against granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had a personal loan charged off for $54,321. $54,321	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.b	Applicant had a personal loan charged off for $15,488. $15,488	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.c	Applicant had a credit card charged off for $12,668, which was settled and paid. $12,668	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.d	Applicant had a store credit card charged off for $7,603, which was settled and paid. $7,603	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
1.e	Applicant had a charged-off account of $6,361, which was paid for less than full balance. $6,361	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.