CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00749 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00749

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/2/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 31-year-old production planner employed by a defense contractor since May 2023. She had previously worked as a teacher and was married with four children. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), alleging nine delinquent debts totaling over $39,000. The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, attributing her financial difficulties primarily to her husband's voluntary unemployment for four months while he sought a higher-paying job.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented established two disqualifying conditions: an inability to satisfy debts and an unwillingness to do so. Although the applicant's husband's unemployment was noted as a factor beyond her control, the judge determined that the applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing her debts, as she provided no evidence of efforts to resolve them after her husband secured a new job. The judge concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by her financial issues and ruled against her, denying 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. 25-00749

deniedFeb 2, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old production planner was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved financial delinquencies totaling over $36,000. The Statement of Reasons detailed nine specific debts, including a leased car charged off for $14,693, a car loan charged off for $17,180, and a personal loan charged off for $4,421. Additionally, there were several collection accounts for telecommunication, insurance, and medical debts, ranging from $315 to $1,267.

The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(b), acknowledging the applicant's admitted financial delinquencies. While Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(b) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence of efforts to resolve her debts, even after her husband's employment situation improved. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial irresponsibility presented significant security concerns, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies totaling over $36,000.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve her debts after her husband's employment situation improved.
The judge found that the applicant's financial irresponsibility raised significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's delinquent debts were numerous and recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's husband's unemployment was voluntary and did not excuse her financial irresponsibility.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 24, 2025
Answer filedAug 7, 2025
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 2, 2026

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Delinquencies Despite Improved Circumstances
The Importance of Providing Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts in Security Clearance Cases

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including charged-off debts and collections totaling over $40,000. The applicant admitted to the debts but failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve them, leading to a decision against her.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	excessive mileage on leased car, charged off for $14,693 $14,693	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.b	car loan charged off for $17,180 $17,180	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	personal loan charged off for $4,421 $4,421	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.d	telecommunication debt, placed for collection of $1,267 $1,267	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	telecommunication debt placed for collection of $447 $447	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.f	insurance debts placed for collection of $392 $392	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.g	insurance debts placed for collection of $315 $315	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.h	telecommunication debt placed for collection of $612 $612	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.i	medical debt placed for collection of $457 $457	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(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.