CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03176 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03176denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03176

Sep 27, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 13 delinquent debts totaling approximately $121,000. The Administrative Judge initially found favorably on five of these debts but adversely on eight, citing Disqualifying Conditions F1 and F3.

While Mitigating Conditions F2 and F3 were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns. The applicant's post-hearing claims of submitting additional documentation to resolve the debts were not substantiated or considered by the Administrative Judge.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing national security considerations and the lack of verified resolution for the outstanding financial obligations. The decision highlighted the applicant's failure to adequately address the eight adversely found debts, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F3raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that debts were resolved.
F3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant's claims of debt resolution were not substantiated.

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 issuedDec 18, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 29, 2022Record closed after hearing.
Decision dateSep 27, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Affirmation of the Need for National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions
Lack of Substantiation for Claims of Debt Resolution Post-hearing

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, specifically 13 delinquent debts. The Administrative Judge ruled favorably on five debts but adversely on eight. The Applicant appealed, claiming that additional documents submitted after the record closed were not considered. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that additional documents submitted after the record closed were not considered by the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

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. 20-03176

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

Date: September 27, 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 December 18, 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 July 29, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 13 delinquent debts totaling about $121,000. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on five debts and adversely on the remaining eight. On appeal, Applicant asserts that he submitted documents after close of the record that were not considered by the Judge. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

At the hearing, Applicant offered 15 exhibits (AE A–O), which were admitted into evidence. At Applicant’s request, the Judge kept the record open until April 5, 2022. In early April, Applicant submitted seven documents, which were accepted as AE P–V, and the record closed. By emails dated May 18, 2022 and May 20, 2022, Applicant requested that the Judge consider additional information submitted by email—specifically, that the anticipated sale of his house was complete, allowing him to resolve all remaining SOR debts. The Judge reopened the record on June 1, 2022, to accept the two emails, marked them as AE W–X, and then again closed the record. In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts that he subsequently mailed additional documents to prove the sale of his house and payment of outstanding debts. Applicant states that the documents were mailed after the record closed as he “didn’t receive all the proof until after the case was closed by the judge.” Appeal Brief at 1. The Judge’s decision, however, explicitly states that “[n]o documentation . . . was submitted reflecting that any of the debts to be paid with the proceeds from the home sale were transacted or satisfied.” Decision at 5. The record contains no indication that Applicant requested an extension of time, that his request was approved, and that he subsequently submitted any documents within the new deadline. Indeed, there is nothing in Applicant’s brief or elsewhere in the record to substantiate his claim that he mailed any additional documents to the Judge, regardless of timing. A review of the entire record discloses no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-01829 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 24, 2022). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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 of the Judge 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