CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01300 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01300denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01300

Nov 17, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance for an applicant, a single mother in her early thirties, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant admitted to numerous delinquent debts, including over $30,500 in student loans. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19.

While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), (b), (c), and (d) were considered, the judge ultimately concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible action or good-faith efforts to resolve her debts. Despite some efforts to manage her finances, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible financial management.

Consequently, the applicant's financial concerns continued to cast doubt upon her judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. The denial of the security clearance was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge found that the applicant's financial issues were ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge noted circumstances outside the applicant's control that affected her financial difficulties.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant received credit counseling and maintained a budget.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe judge concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated good-faith efforts to pay her debts.

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 issuedJun 11, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 20, 2022
Decision dateNov 17, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Management Under Guideline F
Ongoing Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control in Financial 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Judge's findings were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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
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. 21-01300

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: November 17, 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 June 11, 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 hearing. On September 20, 2022, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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 on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis In her early 30s, Applicant is a single mother of three. She attended college but did not receive a degree. Applicant was fired from a job in late 2016, after which she experienced a period

of unemployment. She has worked for her current employer since 2020 and has never held a security clearance. Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts, including two student loans totaling over $30,500. It also alleges delinquent consumer debts and numerous delinquent medical debts. Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, which are also established by the record evidence. Applicant attributed her financial problems to her unemployment, diminished income, various medical issues, moving costs, and being a single mother. She acknowledged during her clearance interview that she had resolved several smaller financial obligations and planned to resolve the remaining ones by negotiating with creditors and through debt consolidation. The Judge found that Applicant was making payments on some of her medical debts. Applicant received credit counseling, has maintained a budget, has no other delinquent debts as of the date of the hearing, and expects a substantial refund from her income tax return that she will use to resolve her financial problems. The Judge noted circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected her financial difficulties and resolved some of the medical debts in her favor. She also favorably resolved two allegations that were duplicates of two others. However, for the bulk of the allegations, including the student loans, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action or good-faith efforts to pay her debts. The Judge stated that Applicant’s finances are not under control and that her financial concerns continue to cast doubt upon her judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability.

DISCUSSION

Applicant states that she was not prepared for the hearing. To the extent that she is contending that she was in some way denied due process, we note that along with the SOR Applicant received a copy of the Directive, which describes the hearing procedures in detail and sets forth an applicant’s rights and obligations regarding the presentation of mitigating evidence. She also received a memorandum from Department Counsel that advised her of her right to an attorney, her opportunity to submit evidence and witnesses, and to testify in her own behalf. Hearing Exhibit I, Department Counsel Memorandum, dated July 13, 2021. At the beginning of the hearing the Judge explained in detail the procedures that would be employed, and she gave Applicant a month afterward to submit additional evidence, although Applicant ultimately presented none. Tr. at 62; Decision at 2. Although Applicant may not be satisfied with the outcome of her case, any defects in her presentation cannot be attributed to failure by DOHA to provide her with appropriate notice and guidance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04472 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 9, 2017). Although pro se applicants are not held to the standard expected of attorneys, they are expected to take reasonable steps to preserve and exercise their rights. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02689 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 26, 2019). We resolve this issue adversely to Applicant. Applicant contends that the Judge “didn’t take into account [all of] the delinquent accounts [that were] paid off before the hearing as well as the accounts that were brought to . . . current status.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, the Judge’s findings about the status of Applicant’s SOR debts are consistent with the record that was before her, and she specifically found that Applicant has no additional debts. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by

substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g. ISCR Case No. 18-02581 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2020). The balance of Applicant’s brief consists in large measure of a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. However, Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). Moreover, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Id. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board