CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02076 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02076

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/28/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had served in the U.S. military from 2008 to 2016 and in the Reserve/National Guard until 2022. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct) and F (financial considerations). The core allegations included a history of employment terminations and eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $8,470.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to owing five of the debts and attributed his financial issues to insufficient income and overspending. He denied owing three debts and claimed to have disputed them. The applicant's employment history included several terminations related to safety issues while driving commercial trucks, and he acknowledged that he had not documented any voluntary payments to creditors. He also stated that he had not received financial counseling and had not filed his tax returns for 2022.
The administrative judge ruled that the applicant had mitigated the personal conduct concerns but did not mitigate the financial considerations concerns. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial history raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness, ultimately denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The decision emphasized the importance of financial responsibility in maintaining national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 23-02076

deniedJan 28, 2025· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed multiple past terminations from commercial truck driving positions between 2017 and 2022, citing accidents, a speeding ticket, and general safety issues. However, the applicant successfully mitigated these personal conduct concerns.

The primary basis for denial stemmed from unmitigated financial issues. The SOR alleged eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $8,470. The applicant admitted owing several of these debts, including consumer debts, a military credit card collection account of $2,767, and an $806 debt he had forgotten. He denied owing a $224 debt to DFAS and a $198 telecommunications debt.

Despite admitting to most of the financial allegations, the applicant failed to resolve these recent and ongoing financial problems. The decision concluded that his history of financial issues and lack of responsible financial management warranted the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated personal conduct security concerns related to his employment history.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were attributed to insufficient income and overspending, not external factors.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial CounselingThe applicant has not received financial counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not document any voluntary payments to creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 28, 2023
Answer filedNov 28, 2023
Hearing heldSep 18, 2024
Decision dateJan 28, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Financial Considerations Leading to Denial Under Guideline F
Impact of Ongoing Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 that the applicant was terminated from several jobs as a commercial truck driver due to performance or safe-driving issues. Although the applicant mitigated some personal conduct concerns, the overall evidence raised questions about his eligibility for a security clearance, leading to a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was terminated from a job as a commercial truck driver in 2022 after he was in an accident.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant left employment as a commercial truck driver by mutual agreement in about 2022 after he received a speeding ticket.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	He was terminated from a job as a commercial truck driver in 2021 (or possibly 2017) for safety issues while driving.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was terminated from a job as a commercial truck driver in about May 2018 for safety issues after he had been in two accidents.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Unknown	—	—	—
1.f–1.g	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For 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 against the applicant on the financial considerations under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $8,470. While the applicant admitted to several debts, the judge determined that the financial concerns were not mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleged eight delinquent debts totaling about $8,470. $8,470	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant admitted owing the consumer debts alleged in SOR 2.b ($442). $442	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant denied owing the $224 debt (SOR 2.c) to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). $224	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant admitted owing the $2,767 collection account for a military credit card (SOR 2.d). $2,767	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant admitted owing the consumer debts alleged in SOR 2.e ($3,093). $3,093	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant admitted the SOR allegation with the comment that he forgot about the $806 delinquent debt (SOR 2.f). $806	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant admitted owing the consumer debts alleged in SOR 2.g ($747). $747	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant denied owing the $198 telecommunications debt alleged in SOR 2.a. $198	For 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.