CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00819 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 25-00819

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: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 25-year-old employee of a government contractor who sought a security clearance. 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 11 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $28,000 and the failure to disclose these debts in his security clearance application, as well as providing false information during interviews with a DOD investigator.
The applicant denied the allegations related to his financial situation but provided no documentation to support his claims of resolving or disputing the debts. He acknowledged some debts but attributed them to confusion regarding their status and claimed that they might have been opened by his parents. Despite his assertions, the evidence presented, including credit reports, confirmed the existence of the delinquent accounts. The applicant also claimed to have payment plans in place but failed to provide supporting documentation.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues indicated poor self-control and lack of judgment, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. The personal conduct allegations were not established, but the financial concerns were deemed significant enough to deny eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 25-00819

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

Summary

A 25-year-old government contractor employee was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had 11 delinquent consumer debts, totaling approximately $28,000. These debts raised concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment.

Although the Statement of Reasons also included an allegation under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) for failing to divulge these debts, this specific allegation was not established. However, the existence of the unmitigated delinquent debts themselves was a significant factor.

Despite the application of several mitigating conditions, the applicant provided insufficient evidence of efforts to resolve or dispute the outstanding debts. Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the unmitigated financial concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,000, which were not mitigated.
The applicant provided insufficient evidence of efforts to resolve or dispute the debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe applicant's financial delinquencies are recent and ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial irresponsibility was not beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of good-faith efforts to repay debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute DebtsThe applicant acknowledged the debts and did not provide documentation to substantiate any disputes.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 18, 2025
Answer filedSep 15, 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
Insufficient Evidence of Intent to Deceive Regarding Financial Omissions
Lack of Established Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E

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 failed to divulge delinquent debts in his security clearance application, which raised personal conduct concerns. The judge ruled against the applicant on the allegations related to personal conduct, concluding that the concerns were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Failed to divulge the delinquent debts listed in SOR.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		Financial		—	—	—

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 against the applicant on multiple allegations of delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $28,000, which included an auto loan and several credit card accounts. The applicant's claims of having a payment plan and settling debts were not sufficiently documented, leading to a conclusion that the financial concerns were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s 11 delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $28,000. $28,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.b–1.k	10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (9 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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.