CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01169 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-01169

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date5/13/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-01169) →
Participants
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a military veteran in his late forties who had been employed since 2011 and was seeking a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), citing a court judgment and multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $139,200. The applicant admitted to the judgment and eight of the delinquent debts, claiming he was working with a debt management company to resolve his financial issues.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had made some progress in addressing his debts, as evidenced by his engagement with a debt management company and a reduction in his total delinquent debt to about $70,920. However, the judge noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that he was consistently making payments or that his financial problems were under control. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to meet the burden of proof required to mitigate the financial concerns outlined in the SOR. The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to support his claims and that the judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01169

May 13, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A military veteran in his late forties was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $139,200. While some favorable findings were noted regarding personal conduct, these did not outweigh the significant financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate mitigation of his financial problems. The judge determined that the applicant did not act responsibly in addressing the resulting debt. Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 19, and while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The appeal was denied, affirming the original decision. The applicant did not meet the burden of proof to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedFinancial CounselingThe applicant received financial counseling from a debt management company.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to RepayThe applicant initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors.

Key Rule Quoted

“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 issuedJul 15, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 25, 2022Decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 13, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of Documentation in Financial Mitigation Under Guideline F
Evaluation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Burden of Proof in Financial Concerns for Security Clearance Cases

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 and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence, misapplied mitigating conditions, and made an arbitrary decision. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to consider all the evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed to apply the mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error. The Judge's conclusion that the applicant did not meet the burden of mitigation was sustainable on the record.

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
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.