CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02999 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02999denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02999

May 12, 2022· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $115,000 in unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant acknowledged insufficient attention to his financial issues and claimed inadequate counseling.

However, the appeal board affirmed the denial, finding that the applicant had received proper notice and opportunities to present evidence. The board concluded that the judge's decision was reasonable and supported by the record.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence that the debts had been resolved. The applicant's prior good security record did not mitigate these financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a meaningful track record of financial recovery.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 7, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2022Decision on written record
Decision dateMay 12, 2022Appeal decision

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Recovery
Due Process Considerations for Pro Se Applicants

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. The applicant, representing himself, argued that he did not receive adequate counseling and that the Judge's analysis was flawed. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he was not adequately counseled and did not give his case the proper attention.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's analysis of mitigating conditions and whole-person factors was flawed.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's analysis or conclusions. The applicant's arguments did not show that the Judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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. 20-02999

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: May 12, 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 April 7, 2021, 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 decision on the written record. On February 23, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant states that he understands how the Judge arrived at his conclusions. Indeed, he observes that, given the evidence in the record, the Judge could only have issued an adverse decision. We do not review cases de novo but must address only those issues of harmful error raised by the appealing party. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. If the appealing party has not raised issues of harmful error we affirm the Decision as it stands. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02330 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2022). Viewing the brief as a whole, we find that Applicant has implicitly raised

such issues. Despite his apparent concession that the Judge’s decision is understandable and supportable, we construe other aspects of Applicant’s brief as raising a possible due process issue and as challenging some aspects of the Judge’s analysis. The SOR alleged 15 delinquent debts totaling about $115,000. The Judge concluded that Applicant presented insufficient evidence to show that these debts had been resolved. Applicant states that he did not give his case for mitigation “the proper attention and focus that [he] should have.” He states that he was not “counseled well” and that he mistakenly believed that the matters contained in the File of Relevant Material (FORM) would be sufficient to result in a favorable decision. Appeal Brief at 1. Prior to closure of the record, Department Counsel, by means of the FORM, provided Applicant with all of the evidence that supported the SOR. In addition, she accompanied the evidence by a written presentation placing Applicant explicitly on notice that he had not provided documents showing a meaningful track record of financial recovery. Applicant received the FORM on September 2, 2021. It was accompanied by a cover letter that also advised him of his rights and obligations to submit a response to the SOR allegations and cited to relevant provisions of the Directive regarding DOHA’s adjudication process. Applicant had previously received a copy of the Directive along with the SOR. After examining the record as a whole, we conclude that Applicant received adequate notice of his right to submit evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-01217 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 19, 2021). If Applicant did not appreciate the gravity of his circumstances, it was not due to any defect in the guidance that DOHA provided him. Although pro se applicants are not expected to perform at the level of attorneys, they are required to take reasonable steps to protect their interests. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03689 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2018). Applicant was not denied the due process rights afforded by the Directive. Applicant makes arguments regarding the Judge’s analysis of the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. Among other things, he contends that he did not wait until he had received the SOR to begin addressing his financial problems, as the Judge stated. He also notes that he has held a clearance for many years without incident or concern. We have considered Applicant’s arguments in light of the record. Applicant’s good prior security record does not undermine the Judge’s decision. Even those with clean records can experience circumstances in which their eligibility for access to classified information could be brought into question. The Government does not have to wait until a person actually compromises classified information in order to issue an adverse determination. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01949 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 14, 2021). Applicant’s arguments viewed as a totality are not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-02818 at 5 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2022). 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 the interests of the 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 the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board