CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02400 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02400denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02400

Oct 3, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to having five delinquent student loans and two consumer debts, which collectively totaled over $49,000. These debts had remained outstanding and unresolved for many years.

Despite admitting to the debts, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by these financial delinquencies. The adjudicator found that the conditions under AG ¶ 19, related to financial irresponsibility, were applicable and not adequately addressed.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied. This decision was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant failed to present compelling evidence to overcome the concerns regarding his financial stability and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedDec 17, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 12, 2022Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
Decision dateOct 3, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Standards

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, specifically delinquent student loans and consumer debts. The applicant, representing himself, argued that the judge made harmful errors in the decision. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance

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 committed harmful error in denying the security clearance.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered the evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The decision was consistent with national security standards.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 21-02400

)

) 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 3, 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 December 17, 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 decision on the written record. On August 12, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 student loans totaling over $23,000 and two consumer debts placed for collection totaling over $26,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation with explanations. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations, noting these debts have been outstanding and unresolved for many years. The Judge concluded Applicant submitted insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from the debts.

In his brief, Applicant submits a document that postdates the decision and makes assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence submitted in an appeal brief. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. None of the arguments that Applicant makes in his appeal brief are sufficient to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Based on our review of the record, we conclude 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