CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02369 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 21-02369

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

Case Profile
Decision Date12/21/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 21-02369) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, James E. Moody, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) identified 22 delinquent debts, including credit cards, medical expenses, education debts, and an automobile loan totaling approximately $20,000. The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to a year of unpaid work and her husband's unemployment but failed to provide detailed information about her income, expenses, or evidence of financial counseling.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant had made some efforts to address her debts, such as engaging two debt resolution companies, most of these actions occurred after the issuance of the SOR. The judge noted that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient responsibility in managing her financial obligations and lacked a clear plan for resolution. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant on ten of the allegations, ultimately concluding that the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for mitigation. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the judges stating that the applicant had not shown any harmful errors in the original findings or analysis.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 21-02369

Dec 21, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 22 delinquent debts. These included a significant auto loan and a collection account. The applicant, representing herself, did not provide sufficient evidence of financial counseling or a budget to demonstrate financial responsibility.

While some efforts were made to resolve debts, most of these actions occurred after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued. The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of financial responsibility or hardship.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, which addresses a history of not meeting 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 issuedDec 1, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 14, 2022
Decision dateDec 21, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Evaluations
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Hardship Affecting Clearance Eligibility

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious and that she had provided sufficient evidence for mitigation. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's findings or analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

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

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge made an error regarding the timing of payments under a settlement agreement.

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 errors identified were harmless. The Judge's analysis was not arbitrary or capricious, and the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error that would warrant a reversal.

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.