CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01035 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01035

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/8/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Nicole A. Smith
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 67-year-old married woman employed as a service desk administrator, who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated concerns regarding her termination for timecard fraud and approximately $20,000 in delinquent debt. The applicant admitted to some allegations but denied others, asserting that discrepancies in her timecard were due to technical issues rather than fraudulent intent.
The administrative judge found that the applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns, noting that her termination was not solely indicative of untrustworthiness, as her immediate supervisor provided a character reference supporting her reliability. However, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations concerns, as she had a significant amount of outstanding debt and had not demonstrated effective management of her financial obligations. Although she had engaged a debt consolidation firm, she ceased working with them and had not made payments under a new plan.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant's request for a security clearance, stating that her financial issues raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness, which were critical for safeguarding classified information. The judge emphasized that the applicant's circumstances did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 24-01035

deniedAug 8, 2025· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 67-year-old married woman was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged she was terminated from a job in August 2022 for timecard fraud and removed from a contract in March 2018 due to a timecard disparity. Additionally, she incurred approximately $20,000 in delinquent debt.

While the applicant successfully mitigated the personal conduct concerns, the judge found that the financial issues remained unmitigated. Specifically, the significant delinquent debt raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c) and applied Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(c) for the personal conduct issues. However, the applicant's failure to mitigate the financial considerations ultimately led to the denial of her security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated personal conduct concerns related to timecard discrepancies.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Financial CounselingThe applicant engaged a debt consolidation company but did not demonstrate clear indications that the problem was under control.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 12, 2024
Answer filedAug 27, 2024
Hearing held—Decision made based on the evidence on file.
Decision dateAug 8, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Financial Considerations Security Concerns Under Guideline F
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 that the applicant was terminated from her job for timecard fraud and removed from a contract due to timecard discrepancies. Despite some favorable findings regarding her character references, the overall conduct raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was terminated from her job in August 2022 for timecard fraud.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was removed from a contract by her employer in about March 2018 after a timecard disparity was discovered.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

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 the financial considerations under Guideline F, citing approximately $20,000 of delinquent debt. Despite some debts being satisfied, the applicant's overall financial situation raised concerns about her reliability and ability to meet financial obligations, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant incurred approximately $20,000 of delinquent debt. $20,000	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.