ISCR Case 24-02090

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-02090

deniedFeb 19, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant provided approximately $400 per month in financial support to ZL, an intimate cohabitant and citizen of China. Additionally, the applicant admitted to sending between $2,000 and $2,500 per month, totaling at least $150,000, to an individual identified as CD via Cash App from 2018 through at least 2023.

Financial concerns also arose from several unresolved debts. The applicant had three credit cards charged off as bad debt: one taken out in June 2017 and charged off in January 2021, another from March 1987 charged off in August 2023, and a third from August 2006 charged off in January 2021. These were reportedly used for "basic life needs." An additional credit card debt from June 1984 resulted from an overdraft protection charge due to a dishonored check. Furthermore, the applicant stopped making $2,000 monthly mortgage payments on a Northern California apartment purchased in November 2003, accumulating $42,736 in arrears by February 2021.

The judge determined that the applicant's relationships and financial decisions posed a risk to national security. The applicant's conduct, including substantial financial support to foreign nationals and a history of poor financial management, demonstrated questionable judgment and a lack of candor. Ultimately, the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided substantial financial support to a cohabitant who is a Chinese national, raising foreign influence concerns.
The applicant admitted to significant unresolved debts and a history of poor financial management, including failure to pay taxes and support for a stranger's alleged inheritance claims.
The applicant's personal conduct demonstrated questionable judgment and lack of candor, further undermining trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)appliedForeign Influence - Contact with Foreign National
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedFinancial Considerations - Inability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedPersonal Conduct - Credible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 6, 2025
Answer filedApr 18, 2025Requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 19, 2026

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Financial Support of Foreign Nationals
Financial Irresponsibility Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Personal Conduct Reflecting Poor Judgment and Lack of Candor

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s intimate cohabitant ZL is a citizen of China to whom Applicant provides approximately $400 per month in financial support.	Against Applicant	Cohabitation with Foreign National Immediate Family	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s intimate cohabitant ZL is a citizen of China to whom Applicant provides approximately $400 per month in financial support.

Against Applicant

Cohabitation with Foreign National

Immediate Family

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted to providing CD with $2,000 to $2,500 per month, totaling at least $150,000, via Cash App from 2018 through at least 2023. $150,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b–2.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
2.d	Applicant took out this credit card in June 2017 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in January 2021.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant took out this credit card in March 1987 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in August 2023.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant took out this credit card in August 2006 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in January 2021.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant took out this credit card in June 1984. The debt arose from “depositing a check that was not honored” resulting in an overdraft protection charge.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
2.h	In November 2003, Applicant purchased an apartment in Northern California for approximately $288,000. He stopped making the $2,000/month mortgage payments in August 2019 and by February 2021, was $42,736 behind in his payments. $42,736	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i–2.j	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant admitted to providing CD with $2,000 to $2,500 per month, totaling at least $150,000, via Cash App from 2018 through at least 2023.

$150,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

2.b–2.c

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

2.d

Applicant took out this credit card in June 2017 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in January 2021.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

—

2.e

Applicant took out this credit card in March 1987 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in August 2023.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

—

2.f

Applicant took out this credit card in August 2006 to pay for “basic life needs.” It was charged off as bad debt in January 2021.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

—

2.g

Applicant took out this credit card in June 1984. The debt arose from “depositing a check that was not honored” resulting in an overdraft protection charge.

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Unknown

—

2.h

In November 2003, Applicant purchased an apartment in Northern California for approximately $288,000. He stopped making the $2,000/month mortgage payments in August 2019 and by February 2021, was $42,736 behind in his payments.

$42,736

Against Applicant

Mortgage or Home Loan Debt

Admitted

—

2.i–2.j

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

Loading case…

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision