A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02400
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 3, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, specifically five delinquent student loans and two consumer debts totaling over $49,000. The applicant admitted to the debts but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns, leading to the affirmation of the denial on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having five delinquent student loans and two consumer debts totaling over $49,000.
- The debts had been outstanding and unresolved for many years.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-17
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-08-12 Decision made by Administrative Judge Shari Dam.
- Decision date
- 2022-10-03 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant, representing himself, argued that the judge committed harmful error. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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