CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00423 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00423denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00423

Mar 16, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to significant financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While an allegation of criminal conduct under Guideline J was resolved favorably for the applicant, the appeal board upheld the denial based on the financial concerns.

The applicant was found against on 19 of 23 financial allegations. The board emphasized that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judge's findings regarding these financial allegations and did not provide timely evidence to counter them.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20, were raised. Although mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21 and AG ¶ 30 were applied, they were insufficient to overcome the extensive financial concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.
AG ¶ 30appliedCriminal ConductThe judge found in favor of the applicant on the criminal conduct allegation.

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 issuedNov 9, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMar 16, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Present Timely Evidence
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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued that he submitted additional evidence that was not acknowledged, but the Board found no harmful error and affirmed the denial. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicant's failure to meet his burden of demonstrating error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that he submitted evidence for the Judge’s consideration that was not acknowledged.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
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. 20-00423

)

) 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: March 16, 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 November 9, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 16, 2021, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 23 financial concerns under Guideline F—14 student loan accounts, five consumer debts, and four medical debts. The Judge found for Applicant on three of the student loan accounts and one medical account and against him on the remaining 19 accounts. The Judge decided favorably for Applicant on the sole Guideline J allegation.

On appeal, Applicant represents that he submitted evidence for the Judge’s consideration on November 11, 2021, that he contacted DOHA to verify receipt, but that he never received a response. However, the record establishes that Applicant received the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) on August 31, 2021, that he was advised to submit any response within 30 days of receipt, that he failed to submit any response, and that the case was forwarded to the Judge for decision on October 1, 2021. The record contains no indication that Applicant requested an extension of the 30-day deadline. Applicant did not provide or identify the evidence he purportedly sent in November 2021. Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that he requested an extension of time, that his request was approved, and that he subsequently submitted any documents within the new deadline. 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). Applicant presumes the decision was based on speculation because financial information “was never requested or queried.” Appeal Brief at 2. This contention is inaccurate. The record contains Applicant’s credit reports, SOR Response, and response to interrogatories. If Applicant wanted the Judge to consider additional evidence, the burden was on him to present it in a timely manner. Directive E3.1.7 and E3.1.15. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no other assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Instead, Applicant re-states information regarding his debts that was previously provided to the Judge in his answer to the SOR. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Applicant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating error below. 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.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board