CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00118 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00118denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00118

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

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant representing himself, primarily due to delinquent debts exceeding $118,000. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.3, which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that these significant debts had been resolved. The judge found against the applicant on all allegations of delinquent debts, concluding that the applicant's claims of timely payments lacked supporting evidence.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the applicant's inability to resolve the outstanding financial obligations and the thoroughness of the judge's initial examination of the evidence. The board found no basis to overturn the decision, upholding the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedJun 9, 2021
Answer filedAug 5, 2021Applicant submitted response to FORM.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMay 5, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Debts Under Guideline F
Importance of Thorough Evidence Examination in Financial Cases
Standard for Granting Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically delinquent debts. The applicant argued that he had made payments on his debts and was not given sufficient time during the initial investigation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the appeal.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the appeal did not raise any specific harmful errors.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 20-00118

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 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 June 9, 2021, 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 decision on the written record. On August 5, 2021, Applicant received his copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) and timely submitted matters in response. On December 17, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged two delinquent student loan debts totaling approximately $78,500, a child support arrearage of approximately $31,300, and six smaller delinquent debts totaling approximately $8,500. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant asserted that he was making payments

on the student loans, the child support arrearage, and one consumer debt and denied the remaining consumer debts, representing that they had been paid. The Judge found against Applicant on all nine allegations. In responding to the FORM, Applicant provided four letters from various collection agencies, each indicating that a specific account was paid or settled. Because the account numbers in the four collection letters did not clearly match the account numbers in the credit reports of record, the Judge was unable to determine whether any of the collection letters pertained to the alleged delinquent consumer accounts. In our review, we determined that one of the letters confirms that Applicant satisfied the consumer debt listed at SOR ¶ 1.d. in the approximate amount of $1,017. We conclude that this error was harmless, as it did not likely affect the outcome of the case, which alleged an aggregate debt of over $118,000. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant asserts that he was given insufficient time to provide necessary documents during the initial investigation, that he has paid all debts in full, and that he has the documents to prove payments on all accounts. The record before us contains no evidence of any time constraints that may have been imposed during the initial investigation. However, it provides ample evidence that Applicant was provided the requisite time to respond both to the SOR and the FORM with any documents that he wanted to have considered in the adjudication of his clearance. He responded in a timely fashion to both the SOR and FORM, without requesting an extension. A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the rights due him under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01237 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 5, 2017). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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.”

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