CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00682 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00682

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/6/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 41-year-old employee of a government contractor who sought a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline F (financial considerations), Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included a history of criminal charges, including drug possession and financial delinquencies totaling nearly $28,000.
The applicant admitted to some of the financial allegations but denied others, claiming that some debts were fraudulent and that he had filed police reports regarding them. He acknowledged a history of criminal conduct, including arrests for drug possession and child-related offenses, but provided varying accounts of these incidents. He cited personal hardships, including unemployment and family deaths, as contributing factors to his financial issues. Despite his claims of having made payments on some debts, he did not provide sufficient documentation to support these assertions.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the concerns related to personal conduct, financial considerations, or criminal conduct. While the applicant had mitigated the drug involvement concerns, the judge found that the applicant's failure to disclose significant criminal history and financial issues on his security clearance application undermined his credibility and demonstrated a lack of judgment, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-00682

deniedMar 6, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old government contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's deliberate omission of significant criminal history and financial obligations from his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct concerns and did not provide credible evidence regarding 12 delinquent accounts totaling just under $28,000. While he successfully mitigated concerns related to drug involvement and substance misuse, including a 2019 arrest for illegal possession of a stolen item and methamphetamine, these efforts were insufficient to overcome other issues.

The judge ultimately found the applicant's testimony inconsistent and lacking in credibility, which undermined his claims of good faith efforts to resolve the outstanding issues. Consequently, the applicant was denied eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted significant criminal history and financial obligations from his security clearance application.
He failed to provide credible evidence regarding his financial obligations, including 12 delinquent accounts totaling nearly $28,000.
The judge found the applicant's testimony inconsistent and lacking in credibility, undermining his claims of good faith efforts to resolve issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 31, 2024
Answer filedJun 6, 2024
Hearing heldJan 29, 2026via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateMar 6, 2026

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Criminal History Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Credibility Issues Impacting 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The applicant's failure to disclose multiple criminal charges and the deliberate nature of these omissions were significant factors in the decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct security concerns.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.b–1.d	3 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 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 that the applicant had 12 delinquent accounts totaling just under $28,000, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations, indicating that none of the mitigating factors applied to the applicant's financial situation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant had 12 delinquent accounts totaling just under $28,000. $28,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b–2.l	11 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns. However, the overall decision was denied, indicating that the applicant's drug-related issues did not sufficiently alleviate the security concerns raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant mitigated the drug involvement and substance misuse security concerns.	For Applicant	Methamphetamine	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations under Guideline J. The applicant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a stolen thing and illegal possession of methamphetamine in 2019, which the judge ruled as disqualifying conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a stolen thing and illegal possession of methamphetamine in 2019.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	—	—	—
4.b–4.c	2 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 J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.