CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02598 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02598

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/25/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: Tovah A. Minster
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 42-year-old individual who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Department of Defense on November 28, 2023, outlined concerns regarding the applicant's failure to disclose multiple delinquent debts on her security clearance application, which included repossessions and accounts in collection.
The applicant admitted to some of the debts listed in the SOR, attributing them to financial difficulties experienced after being laid off from her job in November 2018. She acknowledged a repossessed vehicle and a personal loan in collection but denied other debts, claiming they were old and charged off. Despite being given opportunities to provide documentation to support her claims, she did not submit any evidence to mitigate the concerns raised. The applicant's failure to disclose her financial issues on her application and during the background investigation was noted as a significant factor in the case.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to her financial situation and personal conduct. The judge emphasized the importance of honesty and transparency in the security clearance process, stating that the applicant's deliberate failure to disclose her debts raised significant doubts about her judgment and reliability, ultimately leading to the denial of her 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. 23-02598

deniedJun 25, 2024· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to disclose multiple delinquent debts on her security clearance application and her subsequent lack of candor during the investigation.

Specifically, the applicant deliberately omitted several delinquent accounts from her application. During the government investigation, she provided inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding these debts. For example, she acknowledged one account was for a repossessed vehicle but stated she did not intend to take further action. She also claimed to be current on another debt, while for others, she again indicated no intention to resolve them. One debt was attributed to an incorrect medical charge.

The judge found that the applicant did not provide evidence of efforts to resolve her debts or seek financial counseling. This, combined with her failure to disclose the debts and her inconsistent statements, raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose multiple delinquent debts on her security clearance application.
The applicant did not provide evidence of efforts to resolve her debts or any financial counseling.
The applicant's lack of candor during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about her reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 28, 2023
Answer filedDec 18, 2023Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Decision dateJun 25, 2024

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts Under Guideline E
Lack of Evidence for Financial Mitigation Under Guideline F
Significance of Candor in the Security Clearance Process

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 deliberately failed to disclose delinquent debts on her security clearance application (SCA). This omission was deemed significant and not mitigated, leading to a denial of the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately failed to disclose them on her SCA.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including debts related to a repossessed vehicle, personal loans, and medical bills. The applicant's failure to take action on these debts and lack of evidence to support her claims led to a decision against her.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant acknowledged to the government investigator that this account was for a repossessed vehicle. $13,444	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant told the government investigator she did not intend to take any further action on the debt. $3,571	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant told the government investigator that she was current and making payments on the debt. $2,185	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant told the government investigator that the debt was a bill from a medical provider that incorrectly charged her insurance company. $738	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant told the investigator that she paid the delinquent account and was all caught up on payments. $620	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant told the government investigator she did not intend to take any further action on the debt. $519	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant told the government investigator she did not intend to take any further action on the debt. $171	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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.