CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01655 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01655

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/11/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had previously held a security clearance since 2007, which was withdrawn in 2017. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations), alleging seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,000. The applicant attributed these financial issues to his wife maxing out their accounts during their separation in February 2023 and indicated he planned to dispute the debts after their divorce.
The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to the debts and provided limited context for his financial difficulties. He claimed to be saving money to negotiate with creditors but did not present any documentation or evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve the debts. The judge noted that the applicant's financial problems were recent and ongoing, and he failed to demonstrate responsible actions or a track record of debt repayment.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. The judge emphasized that the applicant's intentions to resolve his debts were insufficient without evidence of action, leading to doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
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. 24-01655

deniedJul 11, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,000. He attributed these financial problems to his wife's actions during their separation, specifically her maxing out accounts.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, citing a history of financial problems and multiple delinquent debts. While mitigating conditions were considered, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation or a concrete plan to resolve the outstanding debts.

The judge determined that the applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to address his financial situation or a responsible approach to his finances. Given that the financial problems were recent and ongoing, the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were called into question, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation regarding his financial issues.
He did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts or a responsible approach to his financial situation.
The applicant's financial problems were recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile the applicant attributed his financial issues to his wife's actions, he did not act responsibly under the circumstances.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant's intentions to resolve his debts were not supported by a track record of repayment.

Key Rule Quoted

“Intentions to resolve financial problems in the future are not a substitute for a track record of debt repayment or other responsible approaches.”
— ISCR Case No. 11-14570 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 23, 2013)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2024
Answer filedOct 9, 2024Requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateJul 11, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation in Financial Considerations Cases
Importance of Demonstrating a Track Record of Debt Repayment for Security Clearance Eligibility

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has a history of financial problems, including multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $23,000. Despite the applicant's claims regarding his wife's actions contributing to these issues, the judge ruled against the applicant, citing a lack of responsible action on his part to address the debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of financial problems, including multiple delinquent debts, totaling approximately $23,000. $23,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant attributed his financial problems to his wife maxing out the accounts when they separated.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
1.c–1.g	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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.