CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02357 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02357

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: Robert E. Coacher
Government Counsel: Erin P. Thompson
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor, seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's delinquency on ten accounts totaling approximately $59,000 and the failure to disclose these debts on his security clearance application.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the majority of the debts listed in the SOR but denied one gym membership debt. He explained that he had not made payments on the delinquent accounts, believing they had been "written off" by creditors, and attributed his financial issues to overspending and predatory lending practices. However, he did not provide evidence to support these claims. The applicant also acknowledged that he misunderstood the questions on his security clearance application regarding his debts, asserting that he thought he was not responsible for them anymore.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not mitigated the financial and personal conduct concerns. The judge found that the applicant's ongoing delinquent debts, lack of effort to resolve them, and the failure to provide truthful information on his application raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
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. 23-02357

deniedFeb 13, 2025· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had approximately $59,000 in unresolved delinquent debts across 10 accounts, including nine credit cards and a gym membership. During his testimony, the applicant admitted to all listed debts except for the gym membership.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's deliberate failure to list these delinquent debts on his April 2023 security clearance application, which was considered false information and undermined his credibility. Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c), and AG ¶ 16(a).

Despite having significant income and assets, the applicant failed to demonstrate any intent to resolve his delinquent debts. While mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(c) was applied, the judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was delinquent on multiple accounts totaling approximately $59,000, which he admitted during the hearing.
The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his debts, undermining his credibility.
The applicant failed to demonstrate any intent to resolve his delinquent debts despite having a significant income and assets.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has Received or Is Receiving Financial CounselingThe applicant claimed to have sought financial counseling, but it was not substantiated with evidence.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 23, 2023
Answer filedOct 27, 2023
Hearing heldDec 10, 2024
Decision dateFeb 13, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Providing False Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions.

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 deliberately provided false information on his security clearance application by failing to disclose his delinquent debts. The applicant's explanations for this omission were not credible, leading to a ruling against him on the personal conduct concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately gave false information on his April 2023 security clearance application when he failed to list his delinquent debts as requested.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 that the applicant was delinquent on multiple accounts totaling approximately $59,000, primarily consisting of credit card debts. Despite the applicant's claims of seeking financial counseling, the judge ruled against the applicant on all but one debt, indicating insufficient mitigation of the financial concerns raised under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was delinquent on 10 accounts, including 9 credit cards and a gym debt, totaling approximately $59,000. $59,000	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Financial Counseling
1.b	Applicant admitted all the SOR debts during his testimony, except for a gym membership debt (SOR 1.j), which he denied.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Financial Counseling
1.c–1.i	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.j	Applicant denied the gym membership debt.	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.