CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01618 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01618

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

Case Profile
Decision Date6/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: John B. Renehan
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had previously held a security clearance while serving in the U.S. Army. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging that the applicant had approximately $19,587 in past-due debts, primarily incurred by his former spouse during his deployment in Afghanistan. The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR.
During the hearing, the applicant acknowledged the debts but provided little evidence of efforts to address them. He attributed most of the financial issues to his former spouse, who had been absent for several years, and claimed that he was unaware of some debts. However, he did not submit any additional documentation to support his claims or demonstrate steps taken to resolve the debts. The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and that he had not established a reasonable basis for disputing the legitimacy of the debts.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR. The judge determined that the applicant's financial issues raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-01618

deniedJun 17, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $19,587 in past-due debts. The applicant admitted to all seven allegations detailed in the Statement of Reasons, which included debts to Creditor A ($13,353), Creditor B ($2,098), Creditor C ($1,765), Creditor D ($686), Creditor E ($468), Creditor F ($240), and Creditor G ($977).

The administrative judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c). While Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), and AG ¶ 20(e) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the financial concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of the debts and the failure to provide evidence of actions taken to resolve them or mitigate the financial issues. Although most of the debt was incurred by a former spouse, the applicant did not demonstrate effective mitigation, leading to the conclusion that granting clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to all allegations related to financial considerations.
The applicant has approximately $19,587 in past-due debts, most of which were incurred by his former spouse.
The applicant did not provide evidence of actions taken to resolve the debts or mitigate the financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe applicant's financial problems are ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant assumed responsibility for the debts post-divorce.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the DebtThe applicant did not provide evidence of disputing the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 25, 2024
Answer filedOct 25, 2024
Hearing heldMay 14, 2025
Decision dateJun 17, 2025

Cite For

Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Past-due Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Mitigating Financial Concerns in Security Clearance Cases

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 applicant has multiple past-due debts totaling over $20,000, which were admitted during the proceedings. The judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, concluding that the financial issues raised security concerns that were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor A in the amount of about $13,353. $13,353	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $2,098. $2,098	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $1,765. $1,765	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about $686. $686	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $468. $468	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor F in the amount of about $240. $240	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant admits the past-due debt to Creditor G in the amount of about $977. $977	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.