CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03197 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03197denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03197

May 5, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied due to significant financial considerations under Guideline F. The primary concern was a delinquent student loan totaling approximately $81,400. This debt raised disqualifying conditions as outlined in Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20.

The judge thoroughly examined potential mitigating conditions, specifically AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(e), but ultimately found that none applied to the applicant's situation. The applicant's arguments, which included claims regarding the statute of limitations and good-faith efforts to settle the debt, were not found persuasive.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, concluding that the judge's findings were well-supported by the evidence and that the applicant's arguments for mitigation were insufficient to overcome the financial security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Occurred so Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe judge found that the applicant's financial difficulties were relevant to her current reliability.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Resolve DebtsThe judge determined that the applicant's attempts to settle the debt did not mitigate the security concerns.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute Legitimacy of DebtThe judge considered the applicant's dispute but found it did not alleviate the security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 13, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2022after close of the record
Decision dateMay 5, 2022

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigating Factors Related to Delinquent Debt
Consideration of Underlying Circumstances of Financial Difficulties in Security Clearance Evaluations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge failed to consider all evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all the evidence and misapplied the mitigating conditions.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge did not properly apply the mitigating conditions related to the applicant's financial situation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered all evidence and properly applied the relevant mitigating conditions, concluding that the applicant's financial issues raised security concerns under Guideline F.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira Modzelewski

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

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

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-------- )

ISCR Case No. 19-03197

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

Date: May 5, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 13, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 23, 2022, after close of the record, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant has a delinquent student loan of approximately $81,400, which Applicant denied, with explanations. On appeal, Applicant asserts that the Judge failed to consider all the evidence and failed in his application of the mitigating conditions. Specifically, she highlights three issues. First, her student loan debt arose over ten years ago, and she has no

other delinquent debt, establishing mitigation under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20(a).1 Second, her student loan debt, is no longer collectible due to the statute of limitations, giving her a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the debt under AG ¶ 20(e).2 Third, despite the fact that her debt is no longer collectible, Applicant attempted—albeit unsuccessfully—to settle the account, constituting a good-faith effort to resolve the debt under AG ¶ 20(d).3 Contrary to Applicant’s argument, our review of the record and the Judge’s decision confirms that the Judge considered all the evidence presented, including that evidence cited by Applicant in her appeal. Moreover, in his decision, the Judge thoroughly explored all mitigating conditions under Guideline F before concluding that none apply. His findings of fact are amply supported by the record. His analysis and conclusions are firmly grounded in the appeal board precedent to which he cites. As the Judge noted in his decision, even if a debt has been rendered uncollectable due to a statute of limitation, a judge may still consider the underlying circumstances of an applicant’s financial difficulties in evaluating whether he or she demonstrated good judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. Decision at 12, citing ISCR Case No. 01-09691 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2003). The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Applicant’s brief discloses no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that the evidence raises security concerns under Guideline F. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 1 AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A. 2 AG ¶ 20(e): the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A. 3 AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board