CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00756 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 25-00756

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/3/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Benjamin R. Dorsey
Government Counsel: Andre M. Gregorian
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 50-year-old employee of a government contractor who had previously been terminated from a job due to unexcused absences and failure to participate in a reasonable accommodation process. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The core allegations included eight delinquent consumer accounts totaling approximately $32,000 and the applicant's failure to disclose her termination from her previous employer on her security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to all but one of the delinquent accounts and attributed her financial difficulties to periods of unemployment, illness, and other factors. She claimed to be working on resolving her debts but provided no documentation to support her assertions. Regarding the personal conduct allegations, she contended that her failure to accurately report her employment status was an oversight, but the administrative judge found her omission to be deliberate.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she did not mitigate the financial and personal conduct security concerns. The judge noted that the applicant's financial delinquencies were recent and ongoing, and she failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve her debts. Additionally, the judge determined that the applicant's inaccuracies in her security clearance application were deliberate, raising questions about her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 25-00756

deniedFeb 3, 2026· Hon. Benjamin R. Dorsey· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old government contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from two primary issues: unresolved financial delinquencies and the deliberate falsification of her employment history on her security clearance application.

The applicant had eight delinquent consumer accounts, totaling approximately $32,000. Despite acknowledging these debts, she failed to provide any evidence of efforts to resolve them, leading to concerns about her financial responsibility. Additionally, the applicant deliberately falsified her employment history on her October 2024 security clearance application, specifically misrepresenting her termination date from a previous employer, Company A.

These actions, particularly the failure to resolve significant debts and the intentional misrepresentation of employment facts, led the judge to conclude that the applicant raised significant concerns regarding her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $32,000, which she failed to resolve or provide documentation for.
The applicant deliberately falsified her employment history by misrepresenting her termination date from a previous employer, which raised questions about her honesty and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 15, 2025
Answer filedAug 1, 2025
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 3, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Employment History Under Guideline E
Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions

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 that the applicant falsified facts on her security clearance application regarding her employment with Company A. The applicant's claim of an oversight was not accepted, and the judge concluded that the falsification was deliberate, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified facts on her October 2024 security clearance application regarding her employment with Company A.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—

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 eight delinquent consumer accounts totaling about $32,000, which were established by her admissions and supporting evidence. The applicant's financial delinquencies were deemed recent and ongoing, leading to a decision against her eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant had eight delinquent consumer accounts totaling about $32,000. $32,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b–1.h	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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.