CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03234 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03234denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03234

Oct 19, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to five delinquent debts totaling approximately $41,000. The primary concern was a significant debt exceeding $38,000, which the applicant failed to adequately mitigate.

Despite the applicant admitting to the debts, the adjudicators found him to be financially irresponsible over several years. His claims of financial difficulties were not persuasive, and he did not demonstrate sufficient good faith efforts to resolve his outstanding obligations.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b) and AG ¶ 20(d) were considered, the applicant did not provide enough evidence to support financial reform or rehabilitation, particularly concerning the largest debt. Consequently, the appeal was denied, as the judges concluded there was insufficient evidence to overcome the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond ControlThe applicant's challenges in raising a family did not sufficiently demonstrate that the financial problems were largely beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant's claims of initiating a repayment plan were not supported by evidence submitted before the hearing closed.

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 issuedFeb 25, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 29, 2022after the record closed
Decision dateOct 19, 2022Appeal affirmed

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Significant Debts
Rejection of Claims Regarding Financial Difficulties as Mitigating Factors

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 The applicant argued that the judge did not properly consider mitigating circumstances and submitted claims regarding outdated credit reports and repayment plans. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge did not consider mitigating conditions related to his financial issues.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues the Government submitted an outdated credit report.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that his most recent credit report does not reflect any delinquent debts.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claims he established a repayment plan for the remaining debt.

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 appeal

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 20-03234

)

) 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: October 19, 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 February 25, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 29, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had five delinquent debts totaling about $41,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations with explanations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the four smaller debts and against him on the remaining debt of over $38,000. The Judge stated that Applicant was financially irresponsible for a number of years, noted he waited until after the hearing to do anything about his financial issues, and concluded he submitted insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from the largest debt.

In his brief, Applicant contends the Government submitted an outdated credit report (Government Exhibit (GE) 2) into evidence. This contention establishes no error. We note the Government also submitted three more recent credit reports, and Applicant submitted one from June 2022. In examining alleged financial delinquencies, a Judge may consider an applicant’s financial history. See, e.g., Directive, Encl. 2, App. ¶ 19(c). Applicant further asserts that his most recent credit report does not reflect any delinquent debts. This assertion is not persuasive. As the Board previously noted, there is more than one plausible explanation for the absence of debts from a credit report, such as their removal due to the passage of time, and the absence of unresolved debts from an applicant’s credit report does not establish meaningful evidence as to the disposition of those debts or constitute evidence of financial reform or rehabilitation. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-02957 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2017). Furthermore, Applicant’s brief does not contend the remaining debt was resolved, but rather states he established a repayment plan for it. In this regard, he claims he did not submit evidence regarding the first payment on that plan because it did not appear on his bank statement until after the hearing closed. This claim, however, constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant argues the Judge did not consider Mitigating Conditions 20(b), "the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly reasonably under the circumstances;” and 20(d), “the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]” In his argument, Applicant contends the challenges of raising a family caused him to lose track of his bills and indicated he plans to pay all of them. None of his arguments are sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge analyzed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. 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