A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-00897
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 20, 2022 · Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to eight delinquent debts totaling over $40,000. The appeal was based on new evidence not considered by the original judge, but the appeal board affirmed the denial, finding the judge's decision reasonable and consistent with national security standards.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling over $40,000, which raised significant security concerns.
- The appeal board found that the judge's findings were reasonable and consistent with national security standards.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-09-11
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-05-27
- Decision date
- 2022-07-20 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically eight delinquent debts totaling over $40,000. The Administrative Judge denied the clearance, and the Applicant appealed, arguing that some debts were resolved or no longer appeared on his credit report. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 20-00897
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: July 20, 2022
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