CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00491 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-00491

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Paul J. Mason
Government Counsel: Troy L. Nussbaum
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 37-year-old single mother seeking to retain her security clearance for a position with a defense contractor. The adjudicative guideline at issue was Guideline F, concerning financial considerations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations of delinquent debts totaling $37,576, which had become overdue between 2017 and 2023, as well as failure to file state tax returns for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to some debts while denying others, claiming financial difficulties were exacerbated by personal circumstances, including caring for her son with a learning disability and a period of unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She provided some evidence of payment plans but failed to demonstrate actual payments made or submit sufficient documentation to support her claims. The administrative judge noted inconsistencies in her financial statements and a lack of evidence for her assertions regarding her debts.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that her evidence in mitigation was insufficient to alleviate the security concerns raised by her financial issues. The judge emphasized that the applicant's financial difficulties indicated poor self-control and lack of judgment, which could undermine her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 24-00491

deniedOct 8, 2025· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old single mother with an 18-year-old son was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to nine delinquent debts totaling $37,576. The Statement of Reasons detailed several financial issues, including a voluntarily returned car, a furniture installment contract she denied, and a bed purchase account that resulted in garnishment. Other allegations involved a cell phone account she attributed to identity theft without evidence of dispute, a medical account she claimed was covered by insurance, and multiple admitted debts for which she provided no documentation of resolution or payment plans.

Additionally, the applicant denied failing to file state tax returns for 2014, 2015, and 2016, but offered no supporting documentation. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, including AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), AG ¶ 19(c), and AG ¶ 19(f).

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentation or a credible plan for resolving her admitted debts. The judge concluded that she did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior, proactive measures to address her financial issues, or engagement in financial counseling.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to some allegations regarding delinquent debts but did not provide adequate documentation or a plan for resolution.
The judge found a lack of proactive measures to address financial issues and the absence of financial counseling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to File State Tax Returns

Key Rule Quoted

“Good judgment is the primary trait for a holder of a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2024
Answer filedApr 29, 2024
Hearing heldMay 6, 2025via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateOct 8, 2025

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Lack of Proactive Measures to Address Financial Issues
Absence of Financial Counseling as a Factor in Security Clearance Denial

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including delinquent debts and failure to file state tax returns. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on most allegations, citing a lack of evidence to support her claims of resolution or mitigation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has an installment loan account for a car purchased in 2019, which she returned voluntarily due to high payments. $706	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant denied purchasing furniture under an installment contract, which became delinquent due to missed payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted opening an account to purchase a bed, which was garnished for non-payment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied a cell phone account, claiming identity theft, but provided no evidence of disputing the account.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant has a medical account that became delinquent, claiming her insurance was active at the time.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant admitted the debt but claimed it was removed from her credit report, which contradicts evidence.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant admitted the debt but claimed to dispute it without providing documentation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant admitted the debt and was working on payment options but provided no documentation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant admitted searching for payment options for a personal loan but did not know the current status of the debt.	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant denied failing to file state tax returns for 2014, 2015, and 2016, but provided no documentation to support her claim.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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.