CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02076 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-02076

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/17/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Philip J. Katauskas
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 36-year-old marine welder who applied for a security clearance in connection with her employment at a defense contractor. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F, related to financial considerations. The SOR alleged that the applicant had four charged-off consumer debts totaling $20,211 and one debt in collection for $50, all of which she admitted.
The applicant acknowledged her financial difficulties and explained that they stemmed from a series of unfortunate events, including a move for employment that did not yield the expected financial benefits, a period of unemployment, and personal loss. While she indicated plans to mitigate her debts, she provided no documentation to support her claims of communication with creditors or any efforts to resolve her financial issues. The administrative judge found that the applicant's financial problems were recent and substantial, and she had not demonstrated responsible conduct in addressing her debts.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to her financial situation. The judge emphasized that the applicant's financial irresponsibility raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 24-02076

deniedSep 17, 2025· Hon. Philip J. Katauskas· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old marine welder was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and recent financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed four charged-off consumer debts totaling $20,211 and one consumer debt in collection for $50. The applicant admitted to all listed debts.

Despite acknowledging her financial obligations and expressing an intent to address them, the applicant failed to provide any documentation of mitigation efforts. Specifically, she did not submit any evidence of payments made or communications with collection agencies regarding these debts.

The judge concluded that the applicant's numerous and recent financial problems raised concerns about her reliability and judgment, leading to the denial of her security clearance. The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(b).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple charged-off debts totaling $20,211 and a collection debt of $50.
The applicant failed to provide documentation of any mitigation efforts regarding her debts.
The judge found the applicant's financial issues to be recent and substantial, raising questions about her reliability and judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 26, 2024
Answer filedMar 10, 2025
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateSep 17, 2025

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Recent and Substantial Financial Issues Raising Reliability Concerns
Failure to Provide Documentation of Mitigation Efforts

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 four charged off consumer debts totaling $20,211 and one debt in collection for $50, all of which the applicant admitted. The judge determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of mitigation efforts, leading to a decision against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has four charged off consumer debts for $20,211 and one consumer debt in collection for $50. $20,211	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted all debts listed in the SOR. $50	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	Applicant provided no documents showing any mitigation efforts for the debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	Applicant did not provide any documents evidencing communications with the collection agency.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	Applicant's financial problems are of recent vintage and numerous enough to raise security concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

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.