CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00839 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00839

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/23/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 46-year-old employee of a defense contractor who applied for a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct). The SOR alleged 19 delinquent debts, falsification of her security clearance application (SCA), and additional false statements made to a previous employer that led to her termination.
The applicant admitted to the majority of the delinquent debts listed in the SOR, totaling approximately $18,000, and acknowledged that her failure to disclose these debts in her SCA was due to an oversight. However, she denied additional allegations of falsification related to her employment. The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to a personal hardship stemming from the end of a long-term relationship but provided no evidence to support her claims or to demonstrate efforts to resolve her debts. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented established disqualifying conditions under both guidelines.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, concluding that the applicant's financial irresponsibility and lack of candor raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness. The judge found that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns, as her financial issues were recent and numerous, and she failed to provide adequate evidence of her circumstances or efforts to rectify her situation.
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. 24-00839

deniedMay 23, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had 19 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $14,000, which included a $169 telecommunications account referred for collection. These debts were either charged off or sent to collections.

Further issues arose from falsifications in her security clearance application. The applicant failed to disclose her delinquent debts on the application and made additional false statements to a private employer, which led to her termination. She also did not disclose this termination on her security clearance application.

While the applicant admitted to some debts and one falsification on her application, she denied other allegations concerning her employment termination. However, the judge found her explanations for both her financial issues and employment termination not credible. Ultimately, the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised, resulting in the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 19 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,000, which she admitted to.
The applicant falsified her security clearance application by failing to disclose her delinquent debts.
The applicant's explanations for her financial issues and employment termination were not credible.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Falsification of a security clearance application strikes at the heart of the security clearance process.”
— ISCR Case No. 09-01652 (App. Bd. Aug. 8, 2011)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 13, 2024
Answer filednullApplicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldnullDecision made on the written record.
Decision dateMay 23, 2025

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Lack of Credible Evidence to Mitigate Security Concerns

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that she falsified her security clearance application and made false statements to a private employer, which resulted in her termination. The applicant's claims of oversight regarding her omissions were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by her conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified her security clearance application (SCA).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	Applicant made additional false statements to a private employer that resulted in her termination.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	Applicant did not disclose being fired from her job.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.d	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on multiple financial allegations, including 19 delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,000 and a telecommunications account placed for collection. The applicant admitted to the debts but did not successfully mitigate the financial concerns raised under Guideline F, resulting in a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 19 delinquent debts totaling about $14,000, charged off or referred for collection. $14,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	Telecommunications account placed for collection of $169. $169	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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.