CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01254 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01254denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01254

May 4, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The denial stemmed from four unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,200. The applicant's arguments regarding these debts were deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns, leading to the application of Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

While the applicant faced denial under Guideline F, the appeal board favored him on other allegations related to Guideline K, which concerns handling protected information. Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 21(a) and AG ¶ 21(c) were applied in this context.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, concluding that the unresolved financial delinquencies presented an unacceptable security risk despite the favorable findings on other aspects of the application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay the DebtsThe applicant's claims regarding resolving debts were not substantiated.

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 issuedNov 17, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 9, 2022
Decision dateMay 4, 2022

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Arguments to Overturn a Denial Based on Financial Considerations
Affirmation of a Denial Despite Favorable Findings on Other Allegations Under Guideline K

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 security clearance based on financial considerations and handling protected information. The applicant argued that the judge erred in unfavorable findings regarding debts but failed to establish any harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline K

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in unfavorable findings regarding debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which 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 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 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

[Extraction unavailable]

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------- )

ISCR Case No. 20-01254

)

) 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: May 4, 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 November 17, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On February 9, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR lists nine Guideline F allegations and three Guideline K allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on four Guideline F allegations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.d, four delinquent debts totaling about $19,200) and found in favor of him on the remaining allegations. The majority of Applicant’s arguments in his appeal brief are directed at the Judge’s favorable findings. Since Department Counsel has not contested the Judge’s favorable findings, we need not address Applicant’s arguments regarding them.

Of note, the Judge made no findings of fact, other than his formal finding, regarding the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d, and Applicant makes no assertion of error on appeal regarding that unfavorable finding. In his brief, Applicant does assert that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.cwill be resolved when his divorce is finalized. The Judge found that Applicant made similar arguments regarding the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, noting Applicant claimed he was awaiting the proceeds from the sale of his community-property house to address these debts. In that regard, the Judge also noted that nothing in the property-transfer documentation mentioned the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. From our review of the record, Applicant has failed to show the Judge erred in his unfavorable findings regarding SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.d. In his brief, Applicant also contends that he is not a security risk by pointing to his service to the United States over the years. None of his arguments are enough to rebut the presumption the Judge considered all of the record evidence or sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence in manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01234 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2020). Applicant failed to establish that 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 D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board