Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01777 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/6/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 24-01777) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Sakeena Farhath
Judge: Ross D. Hyams
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 24-01777, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 24-01777denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-01777

deniedApr 6, 2026· Hon. Ross D. Hyams· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 28-year-old defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline E (personal conduct) and Guideline F (financial considerations) due to a past felony theft charge and unresolved debts totaling approximately $24,000. The judge found that the applicant's attempts to downplay the theft incident and his ongoing financial issues raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide truthful information regarding his past felony theft incident, which involved lying to law enforcement.
The applicant has approximately $24,000 in unresolved debts, indicating a lack of financial responsibility and poor judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 26, 2024
Answer filedMar 3, 2025
Hearing heldMar 10, 2026Hearing delayed due to federal government shutdown.
Decision dateApr 6, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Security Concerns Under Guideline E
Failure to Resolve Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Impact of Dishonesty on 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 against the applicant on personal conduct allegations under Guideline E, determining that he falsified material facts regarding a theft incident in both his security clearance application and during a background interview. The applicant's actions raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

1.a Applicant falsified material facts about the ATV theft in his 2023 SCA.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Other
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.b Applicant falsified material facts about the ATV theft in his 2023 background interview.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Other
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified material facts about the ATV theft in his 2023 SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified material facts about the ATV theft in his 2023 background interview.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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 unresolved financial issues, including multiple charged-off debts and accounts in collection, totaling approximately $24,000. The applicant's failure to address these debts and provide sufficient evidence of good faith efforts to resolve them led to a decision against granting the security clearance.

2.a SOR ¶ 1.a alleges an auto loan charged off for $20,089. Applicant reported he was the cosigner on a vehicle loan for his grandmother. She fell behind on the payments and the car was repossessed. This debt is unresolved.
$20,089
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Auto Loan Debt
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.b SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a cellular phone account placed for collection for $1,884. Applicant reported he changed phone providers when he moved and did not pay for or return the phone he received. This debt is unresolved.
$1,884
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.c SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a credit card account charged off for $735. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. This debt is unresolved.
$735
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.d SOR ¶ 1.d alleges an account placed for collection for $734. Applicant did not recognize this account. This debt is unresolved.
$734
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.e SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a credit card account placed for collection for $613. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. He stated he did not understand how money worked until he was in over his head. The creditor offered him a $200 monthly payment plan, but he has not agreed to it. This debt is unresolved.
$613
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.f SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a credit card account charged off for $24. Applicant obtained it to improve his credit. He stated he never used it but somehow it charged him $24. He claims he paid the debt but did not provide documentation.
$24
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	SOR ¶ 1.a alleges an auto loan charged off for $20,089. Applicant reported he was the cosigner on a vehicle loan for his grandmother. She fell behind on the payments and the car was repossessed. This debt is unresolved. $20,089	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.b	SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a cellular phone account placed for collection for $1,884. Applicant reported he changed phone providers when he moved and did not pay for or return the phone he received. This debt is unresolved. $1,884	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.c	SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a credit card account charged off for $735. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. This debt is unresolved. $735	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.d	SOR ¶ 1.d alleges an account placed for collection for $734. Applicant did not recognize this account. This debt is unresolved. $734	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.e	SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a credit card account placed for collection for $613. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. He stated he did not understand how money worked until he was in over his head. The creditor offered him a $200 monthly payment plan, but he has not agreed to it. This debt is unresolved. $613	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
2.f	SOR ¶ 1.f alleges a credit card account charged off for $24. Applicant obtained it to improve his credit. He stated he never used it but somehow it charged him $24. He claims he paid the debt but did not provide documentation. $24	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

For Government: Sakeena Farhath, Esq., Department Counse

DECISION

For Applicant: Pro se 04/06/2026 Decision HYAMS, Ross D., Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to mit

STATEMENT OF CASE

ate personal conduct and financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On November 26, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct) and F (financial considerations). Applicant answered the SOR on March 3, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 26, 2025. The scheduling of the hearing in this case was delayed when all administrative judges were furloughed from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025, during a federal government shutdown due to a lapse in federal funding. The hearing convened on March 10, 2026. Department Counsel submitted Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8, which were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant submitted attachments with his SOR Answer, which are part of the record, but

FINDINGS OF FACT

did not submit any documentary evidence at the hearing. After the hearing concluded, I held the record open for one week to allow Applicant to submit documentation. He submitted Applicant’s exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.band admitted SOR ¶¶ 2.a-2.f. His admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. Based on my review of the pleadings, evidence submitted, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 28 years old. He is unmarried and has one minor child. He earned his GED in 2023. He has worked for a defense contractor painting aircraft for about two and a half years. (Tr. 15-18) In 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with a felony “theft by taking”. He was about 17 years old. Applicant stated that he and some friends pulled pranks on each other in high school. He claimed that one of his friends wanted to take an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) belonging to another person from their high school, as a prank, and hide the vehicle in the woods. He claimed they intended to give it back but wanted to “mess with” him. Applicant did not know the boy that they took the ATV from, but his friend did. The father of the boy, who was the owner of the ATV, called the police and reported it was stolen. A security camera captured Applicant and his friends taking the ATV and he was wanted for questioning. (Tr. 18-55; GE 7) A witness saw the boys drive the ATV into the woods, leave it there, and depart the scene together. The witness reported suspicious activity to police, who then recovered the vehicle and started an investigation. When Applicant was interviewed by police he lied. He stated it was his first time being in trouble and he was scared. He told police his friend had taken the ATV, which was not true; the record indicated he had driven it away. The details in the police record show that Applicant and his friends took steps to steal the ATV and then hid it, so they could recover the stolen item later. (Tr. 18-55; GE 7) The court did not treat the ATV theft as a prank. The evidence in the record does not provide support to believe this was anything other than theft. Applicant’s felony charge was not adjudicated; he was sent to a pretrial diversion program. He was required to complete one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. He successfully completed the program and his service obligations. He has not had any other arrests or trouble with law enforcement. (Tr. 18-55; Answer; GE 7) In his August 2023 SCA, Applicant provided a statement about the incident in Section 22 – Police Record. He wrote: me and my [buddy] pilled pranks on each other all the time [I] hid his four- wheeler as a prank and his dad pressed charges on me and [I] got charged with theft by taking and [I] got put on pre-trial diversion (GE 1) 2

POLICIES

In a December 2023 background interview with a government investigator, Applicant discussed the incident. The facts he provided were untrue. He stated that he and his friend (Person 1) played pranks on one another all the time. On this day, Person 1 had taken and hidden his car. To get Person 1 back, he went to Person 1’s home and took his ATV during the day from the driveway and hid it around the side of the house in the woods beside the home. He was caught on camera. Person 1’s father called the police and pressed charges even though that Applicant and Person 1 explained to his father that it was a prank. (GE 2) Under Guideline E, the SOR alleges that Applicant falsified material facts about the ATV theft in his 2023 SCA (¶ 1.a), and in his 2023 background interview (¶ 1.b). Under Guideline F, the allegations are as follows: SOR ¶ 1.a alleges an auto loan charged off for $20,089. Applicant reported he was the cosigner on a vehicle loan for his grandmother. She fell behind on the payments and the car was repossessed. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.balleges a cellular phone account placed for collection for $1,884. Applicant reported he changed phone providers when he moved and did not pay for or return the phone he received. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.calleges a credit card account charged off for $735. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.dalleges an account placed for collection for $734. Applicant did not recognize this account. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a credit card account placed for collection for $613. Applicant stated he obtained this credit card when he was young and careless. He stated he did not understand how money worked until he was in over his head. The creditor offered him a $200 monthly payment pl

ANALYSIS

, but he has not agreed to it. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.falleges a credit card account charged off for $24. Applicant obtained it to improve his credit. He stated he never used it but somehow it charged him $24. He claims he paid the debt but did not provide documentation. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) Applicant stated he intends to resolve his financial delinquencies. He hopes to get a second job to have extra money to resolve his debt. The day prior to the hearing, he contacted a debt consolidation company to see what they could do for him. He has not had credit counseling. (Tr. 18-55) In his Answer, Applicant provided a monthly budget which shows that he has about $918 leftover monthly, after his expenses. He stated he is more responsible with his 3

finances now, can meet his monthly expenses, and pays half the monthly daycare cost for his son. He provided a character letter which states that he is reliable and trustworthy and has become more responsible since becoming a father. (Tr. 18-55; Answer; AE A) Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 4

concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). Analysis Guideline E, Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 details the personal conduct security concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special

ANALYSIS

ebt is unresolved. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) SOR ¶ 1.falleges a credit card account charged off for $24. Applicant obtained it to improve his credit. He stated he never used it but somehow it charged him $24. He claims he paid the debt but did not provide documentation. (Tr. 18-55; GE 3-6) Applicant stated he intends to resolve his financial delinquencies. He hopes to get a second job to have extra money to resolve his debt. The day prior to the hearing, he contacted a debt consolidation company to see what they could do for him. He has not had credit counseling. (Tr. 18-55) In his Answer, Applicant provided a monthly budget which shows that he has about $918 leftover monthly, after his expenses. He stated he is more responsible with his 3

ANALYSIS

ities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of tr

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

tand confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 4

FORMAL FINDINGS

nterest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. . . I have considered the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and the following are applicable: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduc

CONCLUSION

ry responsibilities; and (b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator,