CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02447.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 17-02447.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/13/2018
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Francisco Mendez
Applicant's Counsel: Bruce Desimone
Case Summary
The judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, indicating that the applicant did not deliberately falsify information on the security clearance application. The applicant was deemed candid and cooperative throughout the process, and the judge concluded that the concerns raised did not warrant a denial under this guideline.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
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. 17-02447.h1

deniedAug 13, 2018· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old single male applicant, residing with his parents, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had approximately $50,000 in delinquent debts and provided incomplete responses on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant did not list addresses for past residences, jobs, delinquent accounts, or civil court actions, including a car accident lawsuit. He also failed to report two tickets received in 2012 for driving an uninsured vehicle and did not timely file his 2015 tax return. A $567 medical debt was also noted.

While some concerns related to identity theft were mitigated, the judge found insufficient evidence to address the significant financial issues. The applicant admitted to the $50,000 in delinquent debts but provided no documentation to support claims of payments. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated concerns related to identity theft and incomplete application responses.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedIndividual Has a Reasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is not meant to punish a person for past poor financial decisions.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 27, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 17, 2018rescheduled from 05/15/2018 at applicant's request
Decision dateAug 13, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Carelessness in Completing a Security Clearance Application Does Not Equate to Deliberate Falsification Under Guideline E
Impact of Identity Theft on Financial Obligations and 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, indicating that the applicant did not deliberately falsify information on the security clearance application. The applicant was deemed candid and cooperative throughout the process, and the judge concluded that the concerns raised did not warrant a denial under this guideline.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant did not list addresses for apartments he shared for a time with ex-girlfriends, past jobs, his delinquent accounts, and the car accident lawsuit and other non-criminal civil court actions.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant did not report two tickets he received in 2012 for driving an uninsured vehicle.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant purportedly failed to timely file his 2015 tax return.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.d–2.h	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

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 significant financial issues, including approximately $50,000 in delinquent debt, which raised security concerns. While the applicant was able to mitigate some concerns related to a tax lien and a medical debt, the majority of the financial issues remained unresolved, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	failed to timely file his 2015 tax return	For Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other
1.c–1.k	9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.l	$567 medical debt $567	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Claimed Other

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.