Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-02414 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/6/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Judge: Gatha Lafaye
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 24-02414, 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 24-02414denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-02414

deniedApr 6, 2026· Hon. Gatha Lafaye· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 42-year-old defense contractor employee, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to unresolved financial delinquencies totaling approximately $24,000. Despite admitting to the debts and claiming financial difficulties stemming from job loss, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denial of security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to seven delinquent debts totaling about $24,000, which remain unpaid and unresolved.
No evidence was presented to demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay debts or to mitigate financial issues.
Applicant did not provide any financial counseling documentation or evidence of payment arrangements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 19, 2025
Answer filedJul 11, 2025Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
Decision dateApr 6, 2026

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Responsibility in Clearance Cases

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 that the applicant had multiple unresolved debts totaling approximately $24,000, including a significant auto loan and several credit card debts. The applicant's financial issues were deemed to raise security concerns under Guideline F, and the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations, concluding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns.

1.a This individual account for a car was opened in 2019, the last activity occurred in August 2022, and the account was charged off in about October 2024.
$20,060
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Auto Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.b All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts.
$762
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.c All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts.
$740
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.d All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts.
$731
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.e All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts.
$688
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.f Both alleged debts are individual accounts that Applicant disputed through a credit bureau. He said the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f was used for living expenses.
$650
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Credit Card Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
1.g Both alleged debts are individual accounts that Applicant disputed through a credit bureau. He said the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g was for car insurance on the car that was repossessed in SOR ¶ 1.a.
$433
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
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
1.a	This individual account for a car was opened in 2019, the last activity occurred in August 2022, and the account was charged off in about October 2024. $20,060	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts. $762	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts. $740	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts. $731	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts. $688	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Both alleged debts are individual accounts that Applicant disputed through a credit bureau. He said the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f was used for living expenses. $650	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Both alleged debts are individual accounts that Applicant disputed through a credit bureau. He said the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g was for car insurance on the car that was repossessed in SOR ¶ 1.a. $433	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(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

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF W

DECISION

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-02414 Appe

STATEMENT OF CASE

arances For Government: William H. Miller, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/06/2026 Decision LAFAYE, Gatha, Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on June 6, 2024. On March 19, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging s

STATEMENT OF CASE

ecurity concerns under Guideline F. Applicant answered the SOR on July 11, 2025 (Answer) and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on February 5, 2026. The Government’s written case was

FINDINGS OF FACT

evidence without objection. Applicant did not submit any evidence to support his case in mitigation.

Findings of Fact In his Answer, Applicant admitted all allegations in the SOR (¶¶ 1.a - 1.g). His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. After careful review of the evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact. Applicant is 42 years old, and he has worked as a full-time employee of a defense contractor since April 2023. He also works in two part-time positions, one since 2010 and the other since 2022. Prior to his current fill-time position, he worked in several other full- time positions. He worked as a driver from 2021 to 2023, and as a mid-level manager from 2016 to 2020. He attended pre-employment training for three months at a college and earned a certificate in December 2022. In October 2025, he married his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has resided since 1984. He does not have children. (GE 3, 4, 5) In November 2020, Applicant was working as a mid-level supervisor for a private company. He said he was having lunch in the breakroom, and he complained about protesters blocking the entrance to the building, which made it difficult for him to get to work. Two people overheard him and were offended by his comments though he denies he used derogatory or inappropriate language. His supervisor later informed him that he breached the company’s code of ethics, and that he was suspended from the company without pay. He said the company had already changed his schedule and his new schedule made it difficult for him to spend time with his family, and he listed this as the reason he left the position. During his background interview with a government investigator, he acknowledged it was possible that he was fired but said he believed at the time that he was suspended without pay, and he later decided he no longer wanted to return to the position. (GE 3, 4) Applicant completed his first SCA in June 2024. He did not disclose his financial delinquencies in the SCA but discussed his debts with a federal government investigator conducting his August 2024 background interview. He said he did not know he was required to list his closed accounts that were no longer included in his records. (GE 3, 4) The SOR alleges seven delinquent debts of about $24,000. Applicant admitted all of the debts alleged in the SOR, which are also supported by other evidence in the record, including his November 2024 response to financial interrogatories; statements made during his background interview; and two credit bureau reports (CBRs) from June 20

POLICIES

23 and December 2024. (GE 4 – 7) None of the alleged debts have been paid, nor have payment arrangements been made to pay the debts. The evidence regarding the debts is summarized below: SOR ¶ 1.a ($20,060): This individual account for a car was opened in 2019, the last activity occurred in August 2022, and the account was charged off in about October 2024. Applicant said he could no longer afford the car payment after losing his job, and the creditor repossessed the car. The original loan balance was $20,410, and the amount charged off was $20,060. (GE 4-7) This is the largest debt in the SOR. Applicant said he 2

considered filing for bankruptcy in about 2024, but he learned the creditor closed his account in May 2022. (GE 5) SOR ¶¶ 1.b ($762), 1.c ($740), 1.d ($731), and 1.e ($688): All four alleged debts are individual credit card accounts that were used primarily for living expenses, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, which Applicant used for buying car parts. He said he stopped making payments on these debts about four years ago w hen he lost his job and could

ANALYSIS

no longer afford payments. He said that he considered filing bankruptcy but decided against it for the reason stated above. (GE 4 - 7) SOR ¶¶ 1.f ($650) and 1.g ($433): Both alleged debts are individual accounts that Applicant disputed through a credit bureau. He said the debt in SOR ¶ 1.fwas used for living expenses, and debt in SOR ¶ 1.gwas for car insurance on the car that was repossessed in SOR ¶ 1.a. (GE 6, 7) He did not disclose why he disputed these de

bts. Applicant provided a copy of his November 14, 2024, paystub, which shows he earned about $26 per hour at that time and that he participates in his employer’s 401(k)- retirement plan. His gross annual earnings totaled about $50,871 and his net earnings totaled about $31,639. He paid union membership dues, and he paid two loans made against his 401(k)-retirement account, which altogether cost about $119 per pay period.

Applicant said that he and wife have a monthly net income of $5,300 and monthly net expenses of $4,700, which leaves about $700 in discretionary funds. No information was provided about his checking and savings accounts, or other financial and asset information. He listed a state tax debt of $3,200 and he pays $150 monthly on the debt. (GE 5) He said he went through a financially difficult time after losing his job, but now he is on track with his finances, and he does not plan to allow this to happen again. (GE 4) 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 3

“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 “witness

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

es 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 natio

FORMAL FINDINGS

ancial security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18: Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which ca

CONCLUSION

nraise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel sec