CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02913 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02913

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/17/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Robert Robinson Gales
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor who applied for a security clearance on June 21, 2022. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The SOR detailed the applicant's financial delinquencies, including multiple accounts totaling approximately $43,034, and questioned his candor regarding his financial situation.
The applicant admitted to some of the allegations in the SOR, particularly those related to financial considerations, but claimed that he had experienced financial hardship due to personal losses. He asserted that he was working with a company to settle his debts but provided no documentation to support this claim or any repayment plans. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's financial situation remained unresolved, with several accounts in collection and judgments entered against him.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding his financial issues. The judge emphasized the lack of evidence demonstrating responsible financial management or a credible plan to address the delinquencies, which raised doubts about the applicant's trustworthiness and reliability in handling 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. 23-02913

deniedOct 17, 2024· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to significant financial difficulties and a lack of candor regarding his debts.

Specifically, the Statement of Reasons detailed four delinquent accounts: a bank credit card with an unpaid balance of approximately $27,614, which was placed for collection and charged off; another bank credit card with an unpaid balance of approximately $7,882, placed for collection and charged off in 2022; an unspecified account with an unpaid balance of approximately $742, placed for collection; and a bank credit card with an unpaid balance of approximately $6,240, placed for collection and sold to a debt purchaser.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate financial concerns related to five delinquent accounts totaling approximately $43,034. Additionally, the applicant provided inconsistent and sometimes false information about his financial situation and debts, and did not demonstrate a credible plan or good-faith efforts to resolve his financial obligations.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate financial concerns related to five delinquent accounts totaling approximately $43,034.
The applicant provided inconsistent and sometimes false information regarding his financial situation and debts.
The applicant did not demonstrate a credible plan or good-faith efforts to resolve his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 7, 2024
Answer filedMay 22, 2024Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateOct 17, 2024

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Lack of Candor Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Inconsistencies in Applicant's Financial Disclosures Affecting Credibility.

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 under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant's conduct raised security concerns. The applicant admitted to the personal conduct allegation but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by the DCSA adjudicators.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and detailed reasons why the DCSA adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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 several delinquent credit card accounts and a collection account. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on most allegations, citing a lack of resolution and willingness to address the debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	SOR ¶ 1.a. refers to the bank credit-card account, discussed above, with an unpaid balance of approximately $27,614 that was placed for collection and charged off. $27,614	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control
1.b	SOR ¶ 1.b. refers to a bank credit-card account with an unpaid balance of approximately $7,882 that was placed for collection and charged off in 2022. $7,882	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control
1.c	SOR ¶ 1.c. refers to an unspecified type of account with an unpaid balance of approximately $742 that was placed for collection. $742	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control
1.d	SOR ¶ 1.d. refers to bank credit-card account with an unpaid balance of approximately $6,240 that was placed for collection and sold to a debt purchaser. $6,240	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control

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.