CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00897 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00897denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00897

Jul 20, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to eight delinquent debts totaling over $40,000. These debts raised significant security concerns, leading to the application of Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant appealed the initial denial, presenting new evidence that had not been considered by the original judge. However, the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the judge's initial findings were reasonable and consistent with national security standards.

Ultimately, the appeal board found no basis to overturn the original decision, and the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 11, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 27, 2022
Decision dateJul 20, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence in Appeal Processes
Standards for National Security Eligibility Determinations

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that some debts were resolved or no longer appeared on his credit report. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that certain debts no longer appear on his recent credit report and that another debt is resolved because it has been charged off.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision based on the record and the applicable standards.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

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. 20-00897

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: July 20, 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 September 11, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 27, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling a little over $40,000. The Judge found against Applicant on six of those debts. The Judge’s favorable findings were not raised as an issue on appeal. Applicant’s appeal brief contains two credit reports that postdate the Judge’s decision. He also makes assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Those credit reports and assertions constitute new evidence that the Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶

E3.1.29. In general, Applicant’s appeal arguments are unpersuasive because they are primarily based on matters the Board cannot consider. Applicant highlights that certain debts no longer appear on his recent credit report and argues another debt is resolved because it has been charged off. These arguments fail to identify any harmful error. A Judge could reasonably conclude that a charged-off debt remains an ongoing financial problem. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00683 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2018). Moreover, the fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful evidence as to the disposition of that debt. Id. Overall, Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are insufficient to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with 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 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