CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01266 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01266

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/13/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Lauren A. Shure
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 41-year-old management analyst employed by a government contractor since 2016. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's failure to file federal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021, outstanding state tax liens, and delinquent debts totaling over $70,000. Additionally, the applicant was accused of falsifying information on his 2021 security clearance application by not disclosing these debts.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the debts but attributed his financial difficulties to personal tragedies, including the death of his infant son and the care of his incapacitated mother. He filed his tax returns for 2020 and 2021 after the SOR was issued but had not filed for 2022 and 2023. The applicant claimed to have entered into payment plans with tax authorities, but these were suspended due to his failure to file the necessary returns. He also did not provide evidence of financial counseling or substantial efforts to resolve his debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns. The judge noted that while the applicant's financial issues stemmed from circumstances beyond his control, he did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of proactive steps to address his debts or compliance with tax obligations. The judge emphasized the importance of reliability and trustworthiness in the context of national security, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
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. 23-01266

deniedFeb 13, 2025· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old government contractor and father was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from his failure to file federal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021, resulting in approximately $20,947 owed. Additionally, he had four outstanding state tax liens totaling $7,590 and three commercial delinquencies amounting to approximately $51,538.

Further concerns arose from omissions on his security clearance application. He failed to disclose delinquent debts and two alcohol-related arrests from 2009 and 2018. While he had disclosed the 2009 arrest on a previous application, it was omitted from the current one.

Despite attributing his financial difficulties to personal tragedies, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve his outstanding debts. Consequently, the judge concluded that he failed to mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Failed to file federal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021.
Has outstanding debts totaling over $20,000, including state tax liens and commercial delinquencies.
Did not disclose delinquent debts or alcohol-related arrests on his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File or Fraudulently Filing Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlApplicant's financial problems were caused by personal tragedies.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve DebtsApplicant provided minimal evidence of steps taken to address debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 12, 2023
Answer filedSep 3, 2023Applicant denied all allegations except two.
Hearing heldJul 25, 2024
Decision dateFeb 13, 2025

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Issues on Security Clearance Applications
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts in Financial Considerations Cases

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 multiple allegations of personal conduct, including failure to disclose delinquent debts and alcohol-related arrests on his security clearance application. The applicant's omissions raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Did not disclose delinquent debts on security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Did not disclose alcohol-related arrests on security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	Disclosed 2009 alcohol-related arrest on a previous application.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Did not disclose 2018 alcohol-related arrest on security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.e–2.f	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

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 significant financial concerns under Guideline F, including failure to file federal income tax returns and outstanding state tax liens. The applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances were not sufficiently documented or credited, leading to a decision against the applicant on most allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2020 and 2021, and owes approximately $20,947 in delinquent federal income taxes. $20,947	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	—	—
1.b	Has four outstanding state tax liens totaling $7,590. $7,590	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Has three commercial delinquencies totaling approximately $51,538. $51,538	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.i	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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.