CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02206 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02206

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/21/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 37-year-old security officer employed by federal contractors since 2017. He sought a security clearance, which was denied due to concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations, including delinquent debts, a driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, and a history of personal conduct issues, including a prior conviction related to child neglect.
The applicant admitted to several allegations in the SOR, including multiple delinquent debts totaling over $21,000 and a DWI conviction. He claimed he would begin making payments on some debts but provided no evidence of payment arrangements or resolutions at the hearing. He denied other allegations, including the assertion that a telecommunications bill was opened without his authority. The applicant also acknowledged a history of traffic infractions and admitted to being terminated from a previous job due to absenteeism but attributed the inaccuracies in his security clearance application to a mistake.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial issues, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The judge emphasized the importance of trustworthiness for individuals with access to classified information and found that the applicant's history indicated a potential risk to national security, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · 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. 23-02206

deniedOct 21, 2024· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old security officer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited multiple financial issues, including an automobile loan charged off for $7,063, credit card accounts charged off for $9,067 and $4,437, and collection accounts for an insurance bill of $199, a telecommunication bill of $976, and a credit card account of $501.

Additionally, the applicant faced allegations of falsifying his security clearance application and termination from employment due to excessive absenteeism and tardiness. Criminal conduct concerns included a DWI conviction, a conviction for contributing to a child being neglected, and a first-offense DWI.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of responsible actions to mitigate these concerns. Specifically, the applicant had multiple charged-off debts and did not demonstrate responsible financial management. His DWI conviction and extensive traffic infractions raised questions about his judgment and reliability, and his explanation for falsifying the application was unpersuasive. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple charged-off debts and failed to provide evidence of responsible financial management.
The applicant's DWI conviction and extensive traffic infractions raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's explanation for falsifying his security clearance application was deemed unpersuasive.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2023
Answer filedOct 25, 2023
Hearing heldSep 25, 2024conducted by video teleconference
Decision dateOct 21, 2024

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Consideration of Personal Conduct and Reliability Under Guideline E

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 allegations of personal conduct, specifically regarding the falsification of his security clearance application and termination from employment due to excessive absenteeism and tardiness. The applicant's conduct was deemed not mitigated, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	falsification of security clearance application	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	termination of employment for excessive absenteeism and tardiness	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	(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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing numerous delinquent debts including charged-off accounts and collections. The applicant's financial issues were deemed recent and unresolved, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	automobile loan charged off for $7,063 $7,063	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	credit card account charged off for $9,067 $9,067	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	credit-card account charged off for $4,437 $4,437	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	insurance bill placed for collection of $199 $199	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	telecommunication bill placed for collection of $976 $976	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	credit-card account placed for collection of $501 $501	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding the DWI conviction, which raised concerns about his reliability and judgment. The applicant admitted to the DWI charge, and the judge concluded that this incident, along with a history of traffic infractions, did not support a favorable outcome for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
4.a	DWI conviction	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). 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 the allegations of criminal conduct, specifically regarding a conviction for contributing to a child being neglected and a driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. The applicant's DWI incident, while infrequent, was deemed recent and indicative of poor judgment, contributing to the overall negative assessment of his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	conviction of contributing to a child being neglected	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
2.c	driving while intoxicated (DWI), first offense	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

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.