CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01578 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01578

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/5/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
Applicant, a 50-year-old former U.S. Air Force member, applied for a security clearance on August 2, 2023. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on January 2, 2025, citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) due to her delinquent debts totaling $22,212. The SOR included allegations of failure to meet financial obligations, including a charged-off car loan, unpaid rent, and a tuition account in collections.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to four delinquent debts but disputed one of the allegations regarding unpaid rent. She explained that her financial difficulties began in 2018 due to family obligations and were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected her employment and financial stability. Although she had engaged a consumer credit service to manage her debts, she was unable to maintain payments after losing her job in May 2025. The applicant's financial situation was characterized by a lack of savings and ongoing unemployment, which hindered her ability to repay her debts.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised in the SOR. The judge noted that the applicant had not established a meaningful track record of debt repayment and that her financial distress raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, her application for a security clearance 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. 24-01578

deniedFeb 5, 2026· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old former U.S. Air Force member was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F, specifically concerning approximately $38,000 in delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons detailed several outstanding obligations, including a car loan charged off for about $19,130, unpaid rent from a co-signed lease, a university tuition account of approximately $1,804 placed for collection, a federal credit union account charged off for about $378, and a credit card account charged off for approximately $600.

The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c). While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(d) was considered, it was ultimately insufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to responsibly address her substantial delinquent debts. There was no evidence of a meaningful repayment history or effective communication with creditors. The applicant's financial issues were determined to be longstanding and ongoing, with insufficient demonstration of responsible action to resolve the debts.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to responsibly address her delinquent debts totaling approximately $38,000.
There was no evidence of a meaningful track record of repayments or effective communication with creditors.
The applicant's financial issues were longstanding and ongoing, with insufficient evidence of responsible action to resolve her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated and Is Adhering to a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant had some efforts to address her debts but did not establish a consistent repayment history.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 2, 2025
Answer filedFeb 12, 2025
Hearing heldAug 27, 2025via online video teleconferencing
Decision dateFeb 5, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of a Track Record of Repayments in Security Clearance Determinations
Impact of Unresolved Debts on 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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including a charged-off car loan, unpaid rent, a tuition account in collections, a charged-off account with a credit union, and a charged-off credit card. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations, concluding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a meaningful track record of repayment or effective management of her debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted for a car loan account charged off as a bad debt in the approximate amount of $19,130. $19,130	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted for unpaid rent on a lease agreement she had co-signed for a relative.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted on a tuition account from a state university that has been placed for collection by the creditor in the approximate amount of $1,804. $1,804	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to a federal credit union for an account that has been charged off in the approximate amount of $378. $378	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant is indebted for a credit-card account charged off as a bad debt in the approximate amount of $600. $600	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—

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.