CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02340 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02340

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/30/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
Applicant was a 27-year-old individual who served in the U.S. Army from 2015 to 2018 and was seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct), J (criminal conduct), and F (financial considerations). The core allegations included a history of domestic violence, failure to disclose criminal charges and military disciplinary actions on his security clearance application, and significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $34,000.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including a domestic assault charge and multiple delinquent accounts. He denied some allegations, including claims of making threats against his wife and failing to disclose his military disciplinary history. In mitigation, he cited his mental health treatment history, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and depression, but he had not been receiving treatment at the time of the hearing. The administrative judge found that the applicant had not successfully mitigated the security concerns, concluding that his admissions and the severity of the allegations, particularly regarding personal conduct and financial irresponsibility, warranted denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 23-02340

deniedAug 30, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old former U.S. Army service member was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a domestic assault charge, significant financial delinquencies, and a critical finding of a lack of candor during the application process.

The applicant faced allegations including a 2018 charge for Assault – Domestic, 2nd degree felony, and multiple financial debts totaling approximately $34,000. These debts included a $19,201 auto manufacturer account, a $10,499 credit union judgment from 2020, and various collection accounts for cell phone, bank, apartment, credit card, payday loan, finance, and medical expenses ranging from $27 to $1,437.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to disclose relevant and material information on the September 2022 security clearance application. The judge found the applicant's credibility and reliability were compromised by inconsistent statements and a failure to accept responsibility for past conduct, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to a domestic assault charge and multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $34,000.
The judge found the applicant's lack of candor during the security clearance application process to be significant.
The applicant's credibility and reliability were questioned due to inconsistent statements and failure to accept responsibility for past conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15appliedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 31appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 19appliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 29, 2024
Answer filed2024-02-2024
Hearing heldJun 12, 2024
Decision dateAug 30, 2024

Cite For

Lack of Candor as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Financial Delinquencies as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial Under Guideline F

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 allegations, specifically regarding the failure to disclose relevant and material information on his security clearance application. The applicant's lack of candor and attempts to conceal adverse information were significant factors in the decision, leading to a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to disclose relevant and material information on his September 2022 security clearance application concerning multiple questions.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	—	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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including significant debts to various creditors. While one debt was found to be mitigated, the majority of the debts were ruled against the applicant, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant is indebted to an auto manufacturer for an account charged off in the amount of $19,201. $19,201	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant is indebted to a credit union for a judgment filed against him in 2020 in the approximate amount of $10,499. $10,499	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for a cell phone account referred for collection in the amount of $1,437. $1,437	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for a bank account referred for collection in the amount of $631. $631	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.e	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for an apartment complex account referred for collection in the amount of $631. $631	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.f	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for a bank credit card referred for collection in the amount of $572. $572	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.g	Applicant is indebted to a bank for a credit card account charged off in the amount of $336. $336	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.h	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for a speedy payday loan account referred for collection in the amount of $917. $917	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.i	Applicant is indebted to a finance creditor for an account charged off in the amount of $761. $761	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
3.j	Applicant is indebted to a collection agency for an unpaid medical account referred for collection in the amount of $350. $350	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
3.k	Applicant is indebted to a medical provider for an account referred for collection in the amount of $27. $27	Against Applicant	Medical 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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, specifically regarding a charge of Assault – Domestic, a 2nd degree felony from April 2018. The applicant admitted to the charge but failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the associated security concerns, leading to a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was charged with Assault – Domestic, 2nd degree felony, in April 2018.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	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.