CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00734 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00734denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00734

Mar 2, 2022· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant undisclosed debts. The applicant had three delinquent student loans totaling over $123,000 and an additional credit card debt of approximately $2,700.

During the security clearance application process, the applicant failed to disclose the student loans, only acknowledging them during his subsequent interview. He claimed ignorance of these debts, attributing responsibility to his wife. However, the judge found the applicant's claims of ignorance to be lacking in credibility, particularly given his acknowledgment of the loans and his liability for them.

The denial was based on these disqualifying financial conditions and the applicant's lack of candor regarding his financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJul 13, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 16, 2021Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMar 2, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Credibility Determinations in Financial Cases Under Guideline F
Impact of Undisclosed Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge failed to consider mitigating evidence and made arbitrary findings. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and credible determinations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider mitigating evidence or weighed the evidence in an arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law manner.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that her credibility determinations were appropriate. The Judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and adhered to the required legal standards.

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
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. 21-00734

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: March 2, 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 July 13, 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 December 16, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue: whether the Judge failed to consider mitigating evidence or whether she weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s SOR alleges three delinquent student loan accounts in the total amount of a little over $123,000 and a delinquent credit card debt of about $2,700. Applicant did not disclose the student loans on his security clearance application but acknowledged them during his subsequent interview. He told the interviewer that they were for his son’s college education and did not provide a reason for their delinquency. In his SOR answer Applicant denied responsibility for the loans, contending that his wife handled the financial matters associated with their children’s education and that he was unaware that he was listed as solely responsible for the debts arising therefrom. In his response to the File of Relevant Material Applicant claimed that he was disputing the student loans but would pay them were his disputes unsuccessful. The Judge found Applicant’s various contentions about his liability for the student loans to be lacking in credibility. She cited to his acknowledgment of the loans during his clearance interview and to evidence that his children had received the economic benefit of these loans by using the proceeds to fund their education. She noted evidence that Applicant’s name is on the promissory notes, establishing his liability for the debts. She concluded that Applicant had not presented evidence of debt resolution sufficient to mitigate the SOR concerns and entered adverse findings for all four allegations. Applicant’s appeal brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. He states that he understands that the Judge’s decision “was made according to the laws” but believes it unfair that he should be held responsible for debts of which he was unaware at the time they were incurred. Appeal Brief at 1. We construe this argument to mean that, while the Judge’s findings about his formal liability on the student loans were legally correct, her adverse decision did not reflect an accurate assessment of his judgment and reliability. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s claim that he was not aware of his liability for the student loans, and she addressed it in her analysis. Her conclusion that Applicant lacked credibility on this matter is sustainable. We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-00290 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 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