CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-19110.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 02-19110.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/16/2005
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Roger E. Willmeth
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including a civil judgment for unpaid taxes and two tax liens that remain unresolved. While the applicant made some payments on smaller debts, the overall history of financial delinquency led to a denial of the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 02-19110.h1

deniedMar 16, 2005· Hon. Roger E. Willmeth· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old systems engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of unresolved financial difficulties. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed several allegations, including a $767.00 state tax judgment from September 2002 and two state tax liens totaling $5,799.00 from October and November 2001, all of which remained unpaid.

Additional allegations included a $400.00 credit card debt from 1999, a $50.00 medical bill from August 2001, and a $54.00 radiologist bill from February 1997; these three debts were paid in full on October 31, 2003. However, a $468.00 charge from a pet clinic incurred in September 1997 remained unpaid.

The denial was based on the applicant's long-standing financial irresponsibility, extending over 12 years, and his failure to resolve significant obligations, specifically the state tax judgment and the two state tax liens. While the applicant made payments on some smaller debts after receiving the SOR, these efforts were deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by his substantial, unresolved financial indebtedness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of delinquent financial indebtedness extending back for more than 12 years.
The applicant has not resolved a state tax judgment of $767.00 and two state tax liens totaling $5,799.00.
The applicant's efforts to pay off smaller debts were insufficient to mitigate the concerns raised by his unresolved financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant made payments on smaller debts after receiving the SOR.
E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial difficulties predated his business failure.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concern under Guideline F is that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2003
Answer filedNov 11, 2003
Hearing heldApr 29, 2004
Decision dateMar 16, 2005

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Long-standing Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Mitigation Efforts in the Context of Financial Delinquencies

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 a civil judgment for unpaid taxes and two tax liens that remain unresolved. While the applicant made some payments on smaller debts, the overall history of financial delinquency led to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	In September 2002 one of those states obtained a civil judgment against Applicant in the amount of $767.00 for unpaid taxes $767	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	On October 16, 2001, another of those states filed a tax lien against him in the amount of $4,628.00 that he has not paid $4,628	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.c	In December 1999, Applicant opened a credit card account. By April 2001 he had a delinquent balance of $400.00 that the creditor transferred to a debt collector. On October 31, 2003, Applicant paid the account in full. $400	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	In August 2001 Applicant incurred a medical bill of $50.00 he did not pay and that became delinquent. On October 31, 2003, Applicant paid the bill in full. $50	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.e	In February 1997 Applicant incurred a $54.00 bill from a radiologist he did not pay and that became delinquent. On October 31, 2003, Applicant paid the bill in full. $54	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	In September 1997 Applicant incurred a $468.00 charge from a pet clinic that he did not pay and that the creditor transferred to a debt collector. To date, he has not paid the debt. $468	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.g	On November 26, 2001, the third state filed a tax lien against him in the amount of $1,171.00 that he has not paid $1,171	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

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.