CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01592 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01592

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/30/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 23-01592) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 62-year-old married man from Hungary, who immigrated to the United States as a refugee in 1983 and became a naturalized citizen in 1988. He served honorably in the U.S. Army from 1984 to 1988 and later joined the Army National Guard. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $81,000 and a history of going AWOL from the Guard after traveling to his home country without authorization.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the Statement of Reasons and attributed his financial difficulties to an extended period of unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. He claimed to have made some efforts to address his debts, including paying off one delinquent account, but failed to make payments on the majority of his debts as promised. Regarding his personal conduct, he acknowledged his AWOL status but contended that it was due to mistreatment and discrimination within the Guard. However, the administrative judge found that the applicant's actions, particularly the AWOL incident and the ongoing financial issues, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to both financial considerations and personal conduct. The judge noted that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and that his past conduct, particularly the AWOL incident, was a serious breach of duty that was not mitigated by the passage of time or subsequent positive actions. As a result, the applicant's request for security clearance eligibility was denied.
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. 23-01592

deniedApr 30, 2024· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old U.S. Army veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary concerns: unresolved financial issues totaling approximately $81,000 and a history of personal conduct, specifically going AWOL from military service.

The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant incurred multiple delinquent debts amounting to about $81,000 and went AWOL from the Guard, circumventing orders and avoiding accountability. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), and AG ¶ 16(c) were raised.

Despite some efforts to address his debts, the applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns due to ongoing obligations and the absence of a comprehensive repayment plan. Furthermore, his history of going AWOL and dishonesty regarding travel plans raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge concluded that granting security clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations due to ongoing debts and lack of a comprehensive repayment plan.
The applicant's history of going AWOL and dishonesty regarding travel plans raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 29, 2023
Answer filedOct 13, 2023Applicant requested a decision based on the evidence on file.
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 30, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Consideration of the 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation regarding going AWOL from the Guard. The applicant's claims of humiliation and discrimination were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by the conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant went AWOL from the Guard, circumventing orders and avoiding accountability.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the financial allegations under Guideline F, citing multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $81,000. The applicant's claims of working with a debt consolidation company and experiencing unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic were not sufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $81,000. $81,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
1.b–1.j	9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (8 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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.