CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00949 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00949denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00949

Jan 26, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, represented by counsel, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had a mortgage account pending foreclosure and two charged-off accounts totaling over $26,000. These conditions raised security concerns under Disqualifying Condition F.3.

While the applicant admitted to the debts, they did not demonstrate responsible actions to resolve them. The judge determined that these financial problems alone were sufficient to raise security concerns warranting denial.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing the debts were insufficient for denial. However, the appeal board affirmed the initial denial, finding the judge's conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“It is well established that financial problems, standing alone, may be a sufficient basis to raise security concerns and to disqualify an applicant from being granted a security clearance.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-03940 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 10, 2022)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 1, 2021
Decision dateJan 26, 2022

Cite For

Sufficiency of Financial Issues Under Guideline F for Security Clearance Denial
Interpretation of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases
Affirmation of Judge's Conclusions Based on Evidence in Financial Cases

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge's analysis was flawed and that financial issues alone should not disqualify him. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's debts and financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's analysis of the evidence was flawed, resulting in a decision that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial issues were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful errors in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy
James E. Moody
Moira D. 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. 20-00949

)

) 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: January 26, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Carl Anthony Marrone, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 10, 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 October 1, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s analysis of the evidence was flawed, resulting in a decision that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged that Applicant had a mortgage account pending foreclosure that was past due for about $51,800 and that he had two charged off accounts totaling over $26,000. In

responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the three debts. The Judge found against Applicant on each of those debts, concluding Applicant did not show he has acted responsibly in attempting to resolve them. In his brief, Applicant contends that the alleged delinquent debts are not a sufficient basis for denying him a security clearance. He argues that there must be other factors―such as addiction, gambling or mental health problems―associated with the debts for them to be disqualifying. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19 03940 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 10, 2022) for a lengthier discussion of this issue. It is well established that financial problems, standing alone, may be a sufficient basis to raise security concerns and to disqualify an applicant from being granted a security clearance. The three delinquent debts alleged in the SOR were a sufficient basis for the Judge to deny Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant challenges the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had “no plans to make payments” on two of the alleged debts, i.e., the mortgage account and a charged-off credit card account. Appeal Brief at 5, quoting from Decision at 3. In his findings, the Judge noted that foreclosure proceeding had started on the mortgage account and that Applicant has not made any recent payments on the credit card account. Based on our review, the challenged conclusions were reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Applicant has not cited any evidence that would establish the Judge erred in making those conclusions. Applicant contends the Judge improperly analyzed the evidence. For example, he argues that the Judge erred by overemphasizing the unfavorable evidence and by failing to apply correctly the mitigating conditions. In his arguments, Applicant highlights his military service, attributes his financial problems to a 2016 divorce, and notes he has never been involved in a security incident. He further claims that the Government does not oppose him being granted a security clearance. In essence, Applicant’s brief argues for an alternative interpretation of the record evidence, which is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s findings and conclusions are erroneous. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2001). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence in the record, nor has he shown the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020). Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. 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 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 Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board