CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02948 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02948

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/18/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Rhett E. Petcher
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The adjudicative guidelines at issue were related to financial considerations, specifically allegations that the applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for multiple years, accrued significant tax debts, and misused a government-issued travel card. The Statement of Reasons outlined concerns regarding the applicant's financial irresponsibility, including delinquent consumer accounts totaling over $76,000.
In his response to the allegations, the applicant admitted most of the claims but denied one related to the misuse of funds. He asserted that he had established payment plans with some creditors and cited personal challenges following a divorce as contributing factors to his financial difficulties. Despite these claims, the applicant provided no documentation to support his assertions of financial management or resolution of debts, and the judge noted that the applicant's tax issues remained unresolved.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial concerns raised. The judge emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in determining trustworthiness and reliability for access to classified information. Given the applicant's ongoing financial issues and lack of documented efforts to address them, the judge found that granting a security clearance would not be consistent with national interests.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-02948

deniedDec 18, 2024· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved financial issues. The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2016 through 2019, resulting in an approximate federal tax debt of $30,212 and a state tax debt of $6,688.

Additionally, the applicant accumulated eight delinquent consumer accounts totaling over $76,000, for which no documented payments or payment plans were provided. Further financial concerns included the misuse of a government-issued travel card in 2019, which led to a reprimand. The applicant also used Veterans Administration GI Bill funds in 2017 for living expenses rather than education, resulting in wage garnishments in 2022 to recover the funds.

The judge determined that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence of financial stability or rehabilitation efforts, emphasizing the importance of financial responsibility for security clearance eligibility. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years 2016 through 2019.
The applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes totaling approximately $30,212 and to the state for about $6,688.
The applicant accumulated eight delinquent consumer accounts exceeding $76,000 without documented payments or payment plans.
The applicant misused a government-issued travel card and GI Bill funds, leading to reprimands and wage garnishments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
19(d)appliedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted 'upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.'”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 6, 2024
Answer filedJul 14, 2024Requested resolution on the written record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held.
Decision dateDec 18, 2024

Cite For

Failure to File Tax Returns as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Efforts in Financial Matters

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found significant financial concerns under Guideline F, including failure to file tax returns and substantial delinquent debts. The applicant's claims of hardship and attempts to establish payment plans were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failed to file his federal and state income tax returns for at least tax years 2016 through 2019	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.b	is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $30,212 $30,212	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.c	is indebted to his state of residence for delinquent taxes in the approximate amount of $6,688 $6,688	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.d	accumulated eight delinquent consumer accounts exceeding $76,000 $76,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.e	misused a government-issued travel card in 2019, for which he was reprimanded	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.f	used Veterans Administration (VA) GI Bill funds in 2017 to pay for rent and living expenses, rather than education expenses, and as a result had his wages garnished in 2022 to recover the funds	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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.