Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-01234 · CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date4/23/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case ISCR Case No. 25-01234) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq.
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-01234, 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 25-01234denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-01234

deniedApr 23, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 55-year-old employee of a DoD contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to unresolved debts exceeding $37,000. Despite some evidence of a payment plan for two debts, the applicant admitted to all debts and failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve them, leading to a denial of her security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to all debts alleged in the SOR.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve her financial issues.
Most creditors were not contacted, and payments were not made on the majority of debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial issues predated her departure from USG employment.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a good faith effort to resolve her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“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 can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2025
Answer filedOct 14, 2025Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateApr 23, 2026

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Failure to Demonstrate Good Faith Effort in Resolving Debts
Impact of Financial Distress on Reliability and Trustworthiness Under Guideline F

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 significant unresolved financial issues, including delinquent debts totaling over $37,000. While some debts were acknowledged and a payment plan was initiated for a couple of them, the applicant failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve the majority of her debts, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

1.a Auto Loan ($8,475). Applicant took out a $26,336 loan in April 2018 to purchase a vehicle. She stopped making payments on the car after leaving her job in November 2022 and voluntarily surrendered it the following year. The vehicle was sold, and the balance was purchased by a collection agency. Applicant disclosed the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire and admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date.
$8,475
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 Personal Loan ($7,041). Applicant took out nine different personal loans with Lender One from October 2020 through February 2022 totaling $35,500. Applicant paid off each loan as agreed with the exceptions of the last $5,000 loan and the $6,000 loan discussed below under SOR ¶ 1.l. After the application of penalties and fees, by April 2024, the debt grew to the amount alleged in the SOR. Applicant took out the loan for 'living arrangements and essentials.' She did not disclose the existence of these delinquent debts in the Questionnaire but admitted to them in her Answer. She has, however, started a payment plan of $50 per month.
$7,041
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Personal Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20):
(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts
Mitigation:
Claimed
Payment Plan with Creditor
1.d Online store credit ($960). Applicant opened four different lines of credit with this online retail outlet from July 2020 to April 2022. This particular line of credit was opened in November 2020 for 'living arrangements and essentials.' The account was closed and charged off as a loss by August 2022. The debt was then purchased by a collection agency. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date.
$960
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	Auto Loan ($8,475). Applicant took out a $26,336 loan in April 2018 to purchase a vehicle. She stopped making payments on the car after leaving her job in November 2022 and voluntarily surrendered it the following year. The vehicle was sold, and the balance was purchased by a collection agency. Applicant disclosed the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire and admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date. $8,475	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Personal Loan ($7,041). Applicant took out nine different personal loans with Lender One from October 2020 through February 2022 totaling $35,500. Applicant paid off each loan as agreed with the exceptions of the last $5,000 loan and the $6,000 loan discussed below under SOR ¶ 1.l. After the application of penalties and fees, by April 2024, the debt grew to the amount alleged in the SOR. Applicant took out the loan for 'living arrangements and essentials.' She did not disclose the existence of these delinquent debts in the Questionnaire but admitted to them in her Answer. She has, however, started a payment plan of $50 per month. $7,041	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor
1.d	Online store credit ($960). Applicant opened four different lines of credit with this online retail outlet from July 2020 to April 2022. This particular line of credit was opened in November 2020 for 'living arrangements and essentials.' The account was closed and charged off as a loss by August 2022. The debt was then purchased by a collection agency. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. $960	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 WAR DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01234

DECISION

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/23/2026

STATEMENT OF CASE

Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised under the Financial Considerations adjudicative guideline. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on July 12, 2022 (Questionnaire). On October 3, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within DoD aft

FINDINGS OF FACT

r June 8, 2017.

In a written response dated October 14, 2025, Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer). She requested that this case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In her Answer, she admitted to all the debts alleged in the SOR. On December 30, 2025, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 to 8 and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on January 20, 2026. She was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns, but did not respond within the period specified to do so. The case was assigned to me on April 20, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 55-year-old employee with a DoD contractor who submitted the Questionnaire in connection with her employment. She completed some college courses in 2009, 2010, and 2015. She was married from 1992 – 2015, began living with a cohabitant in 2015, and has four adult children. She began working for the DoD contractor in October 2024. Applicant previously applied for a security clearance in 2022 while employed with another DoD contractor, but left that position prior to completion of the adjudication. As such, this is her second application for a security clearance. (GE 3 at 5, 10-11, 14, 21-22, 25-27, 34) SOR Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because she has delinquent and unresolved debts in excess of $37,000. I find the following facts regarding the history and status of the debts: 1.a. Auto Loan ($8,475). Applicant took out a $26,336 loan in April 2018 to purchase a vehicle. She stopped making payments on the car after leaving her job in November 2022 and voluntarily surrendered it the following year. The vehicle was sold, and the balance was purchased by a collection agency. Applicant disclosed the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire and admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date. (GE 3 at 14, 36-37; GE 4 at 2; GE 5 at 3; GE 6 at 3, 6; GE 7 at 4; GE 8 at 2-3) 1.b. Personal Loan ($7,041). Applicant took out nine different personal loans with Lender One from October 2020 through February 2022 totaling $35,500. Applicant paid off each loan as agreed with the exceptions of the last $5,000 loan and the $6,000 loan discussed below under SOR ¶ 1.l. After the application of penalties and fees, by April 2024, the debt grew to the amount alleged in the SOR. Applicant took out the loan for “living arrangements and essentials.” She did not disclose the existence of these delinquent debts in the Questionnaire but admitted to them in her Answer. She has, however, started a payment plan of $50 per

month (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 6-7; GE 5 at 4, 9-11; GE 6 at 7, 12-14; GE 7 at 5 , 14, 21; GE 8 at 4) 2

1.c. Online store credit ($1,418). Ap

POLICIES

licant made purchases from an online “pay later” vendor in September 2022 for “living arrangements and essentials.” The debt was sold to a collection agency by December 2024. Applicant did no

tdisclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has, however, started a payment plan of $50 per

month (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 2-3; GE 5 at 4; GE 7 at 6, 14, 21; GE 8 at 4) 1.d. Online store credit ($960). Applicant opened four different lines of credit with this online retail outlet from July 2020 to April 2022. This particular line of credit was opened in November 2020 for “living arrangements and essentials.” The account was closed and charged off as a loss by August 2022. The debt was then purchased by a collection agency. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 5 at 6-7, 13, 15; GE 7 at 6; GE 8 at 7) 1.e. Payday Lender ($937). Applicant took out six different personal loans with Lender Two from November 2020 through June 2022 totaling $2,120. Applicant paid off each loan as agreed with the exception of the last $750 loan. After the application of penalties and fees, by December 2024, the debt grew to the amount alleged in the SOR. Applicant took out the loan for “living arrangements and essentials.” She did not disclose the existence of these delinquent debts in the Questionnaire but admitted to them in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 3, 9-10; GE 5 at 5, 13-14; GE 6 at 8, 10-11; GE 7 at 6; GE 8 at 4) 1.f. Cell Phone ($740). Applicant stopped making payments for her cell phone services in February 2022. The debt was sold to a collecti

ANALYSIS

nagency by December 2023. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 3; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 5; GE 7 at 7; GE 8 at 5) 1.g. Payday Lender ($651). This delinquent payday loan from Lender Three was purchased by a collection agency by March 2025. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 3) 1.h. Cable Service ($603). Applicant stopped making payments for her cable services in February 2022. The debt was sold to a collection agency by July 2022. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 4; GE 5 at 5; GE 6 at 5; GE 7 at 7; GE 8 at 5) 3

1.i. Credit Card ($190). Applicant took out this credit card in June 2020 for “living arrangements and essentials.” The debt was sold to a collection agency by January 2025. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the lender and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 4; GE 5 at 6; GE 7 at 7; GE 8 at 6) 1.j. Auto Loan ($3,374). Applicant took out a $12,048 loan in December 2019 to purchase a vehicle. She stopped making payments on the car and voluntarily surrendered it in December 2024. The vehicle was sold, and the balance was charged off as a loss. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 4 at 5; GE 5 at 7; GE 6 at 7; GE 7 at 8; GE 8 at 7) 1.k. Auto Accident ($7,311). Applicant was in an automobile accident in 2022, but her insurance did not cover all of her liabilities. Applicant did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date. (Answer; GE 3

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

t 36-38; GE 5 at 4; GE 7 at 5; GE 8 at 3) 1.l. Personal Loan ($6,000). This debt is the other delinquent personal loan from Lender One discussed above in SOR ¶ 1.b. The de

bt was purchased by a collection agency by August 2024. Applicant took out the loan for “living arrangements and essentials.” She did not disclose the existence of this delinquent debt in the Questionnaire but admitted to it in her Answer. She has not contacted the debt holder and has made no payments to date (Answer; GE 3 at 36-38; GE 5 at 4; GE 7 at 5, 14, 18, 21; GE 8 at 4) Whole Person Evidence Applicant was steadily employed by a component of the United States Government (USG) from November 2016 until February 2022. Feeling overworked and stressed, she left her position by taking vacation leave and not returning. She then began working in February 2022 for a DoD contractor but left that position in November 2022 to work nights at a cable service provider so she could assist her ailing parents during the day. Starting in February 2023, she became self-employed as a full-time homecare worker for her parents. She continued in this role until both parents passed, after which time she started working with the current DoD contractor/sponsor in October 2024. Her monthly net pay is approximately $3,167 with expenses of approximately $1,350. It appears she is paying $50 per month on the debts listed in both SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.c. The record contains no evidence of what if any income her cohabitant of ten years provides for the household. (GE 3 11-15; GE 7 at 14, 18, 21; GE 8 at 2) 4

Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The a

FORMAL FINDINGS

hole-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, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, l

CONCLUSION

gical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish con