CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01203 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01203denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01203

Sep 14, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple financial issues. These included a failure to file a federal income tax return for 2016, resulting in a $1,500 debt to the federal government. Additionally, the applicant had a collection account totaling approximately $43,000 and owed about $2,700 to a lessor following an eviction from a rental property in 2017.

The applicant claimed these debts were settled; however, the judge found insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that all evidence had been considered. The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing that security clearance decisions must align with national security standards.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions outlined in AG ¶ 19, specifically citing the applicant's delinquent taxes, significant collection account, and outstanding debt from the eviction. The board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the financial concerns to a degree consistent with national security requirements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 1, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 6, 2022
Decision dateSep 14, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Resolution of Debts for Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of the Judge's Decision Based on National Security Standards

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 was from a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge did not consider settled debts and the progress made in resolving judgments. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge did not take into account that alleged debts were settled or paid off.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not consider the progress he made in resolving judgments.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the loss of his security clearance would negatively impact him.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

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 — 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. 20-01203

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: September 14, 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 1, 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 6, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey 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 sets forth 16 allegations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on 12 of those allegations. Those favorable findings were not raised as an issue on appeal. The Judge found against Applicant on allegations that asserted he failed to file his Federal income tax return for 2016 as required, that he was indebted to the Federal Government for $1,500 in delinquent taxes, that he had a collection account of about $43,000, and that he was evicted from a rental property in 2017 and owes the lessor of about $2,700.

In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts the Judge did not take into account that alleged debts were settled or paid off. In support of that claim, he submits documents concerning those debts that were admitted into evidence at the hearing. Most of these documents, however, pertain to SOR allegations that the Judge found in favor of Applicant. This assignment of error has no merit. Applicant contends that the Judge did not take into account the progress he has made in resolving judgments and asserts that, if his clearance is reinstated, he will stay current on his debts. None of his arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 13, 2022). Applicant also asserts that loss of his security clearance would have a negative impact on him. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not relevant in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. 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