CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01458 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01458

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/15/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell
Case Summary
Applicant was a 65-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought 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 SOR alleged that the applicant had significant past-due debts and a history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUI charges and other offenses, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to most of the allegations in the SOR, including over $35,000 in past-due debts and a history of criminal charges spanning several decades. He attributed some of his financial difficulties to unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic but had not taken substantial steps to address his debts, aside from hiring a credit repair service. The applicant also acknowledged failing to disclose certain debts and a public intoxication charge on his e-QIP, claiming these omissions were oversights.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the financial issues and the extensive history of personal conduct violations indicated a lack of judgment and reliability. The judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of the security concerns, as he had not taken meaningful action to resolve his financial problems or to address his pattern of dishonesty. Consequently, the judge determined that granting the security clearance was not consistent with the national interest.
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. 24-01458

deniedSep 15, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 65-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 admitted to multiple past-due debts totaling over $35,000, including specific debts of approximately $6,054 to Creditor A, $391 to Creditor B, and ten additional debts totaling about $28,851. He also failed to disclose these debts on his e-QIP.

Additionally, the applicant had a long history of criminal charges. These included DUIs in 1984, 1987, 1991, and 2004; battery charges in 1985, 1987, and 1989; and a public intoxication charge in 2020, which he also failed to disclose on his e-QIP. A felony burglary charge from 2004 was dismissed.

The administrative judge found against the applicant on most allegations, concluding that he failed to mitigate security concerns. The denial was based on his admitted past-due debts, his failure to address them, his extensive history of criminal conduct, and his inability to demonstrate that his financial problems were unlikely to recur or that he had taken steps toward mitigation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to over $35,000 in past-due debts and failed to take action to address them.
The applicant has a long history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUIs and battery charges.
The applicant did not demonstrate that his financial problems were unlikely to recur or that he had taken steps to mitigate them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(d)raisedCredible Adverse Information

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 22, 2025
Answer filedFeb 5, 2025
Hearing heldJul 29, 2025
Decision dateSep 15, 2025

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 against the applicant on multiple personal conduct allegations, including failures to disclose criminal charges and past-due debts on his e-QIP. The applicant's admissions regarding his past conduct did not mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline E, leading to a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits that in October of 1984, about 41 years ago, he was charged with and convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits that in October of 1985, about 40 years ago, he was charged with Pointing or Aiming a Gun or Pistol at Another and with a Simple Battery.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant admits that in June of 1987, about 38 years ago, he was charged with and convicted of a Simple Battery.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant admits that in December of 1987, also about 38 years ago, he was charged with and convicted of a DUI.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant admits that in March of 1989, about 36 years ago, he was charged with a Simple Battery.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant admits that in April of 1991, also about 34 years ago, he was charged with and convicted of a DUI.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant admits that in July of 2004, about 21 years ago, he was charged with Felony Burglary. This charge was later dismissed.	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	Applicant admits that in July of 2004, also about 21 years ago, he was charged with and convicted of a DUI.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.j	Applicant admits that in October of 2020, about 5 years ago, he was charged with Liquor – Public Intoxication.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.k	Applicant admits that he failed to disclose his October 2020, Liquor – Public Intoxication charge in response to his e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.l	Applicant admits that he failed to disclose his admitted past-due debts in response to his e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(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 against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, noting that the applicant admitted to multiple past-due debts totaling approximately $35,296. The applicant did not take sufficient action to address these debts, which contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he has a past-due debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $6,054. $6,054	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that he has a past-due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $391. $391	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits ten additional past-due debts totaling about $28,851. $28,851	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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.