CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00008 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00008denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00008

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 26 delinquent debts totaling approximately $33,800. The Administrative Judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19, noting the significant number and amount of outstanding debts.

While the Judge acknowledged some payments had been made and that the applicant faced conditions beyond his control, applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c), the applicant ultimately failed to provide sufficient documentation to support claims of resolving these debts. Consequently, the Judge concluded that the applicant did not adequately mitigate the security concerns stemming from his financial issues.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The denial was upheld because the applicant did not provide adequate documentation to demonstrate resolution of the debts, leading to an unmitigated financial risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Individual Has Shown a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control.The Judge noted that conditions beyond the applicant's control contributed to his financial problems.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo, and the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating an individual’s clearance eligibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 19-02397 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 6, 2020)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 25, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 29, 2022Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateNov 21, 2022Appeal Board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Limitations of the Appeal Board's Review Process
Consideration of Conditions Beyond the Applicant's Control in Financial Matters

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. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider certain documents, but the Board found no harmful error and affirmed the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — 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 claimed the Judge did not consider certain documents.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

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 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. 22-00008

)

) 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: November 21, 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 February 25, 2022, 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 September 29, 2022, after considering the written record, 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. The SOR, as amended, alleged that Applicant had 26 delinquent debts, consisting of 18 consumer debts totaling about $32,000 and 8 medical debts totaling about $1,800. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two paid debts and against him on the remaining debts. The Judge noted that conditions beyond Applicant’s control contributed to his financial problems and that he provided proof of a $100 payment toward an unresolved debt. In general, however, the Judge concluded that Applicant failed to provide documentation to corroborate his claims about efforts to resolve the debts and that he failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from the alleged debts.

Signed: James F. Duffy Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Signed: Moria Modzelewski James F. Duffy Jennifer I. Goldstein Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Member, Appeal Board Member, Appeal Board

Applicant’s brief contains documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Those documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In his appeal brief, Applicant claims he provided documents that the Judge did not examine. The administrative record contains Applicant’s responses to the SOR and Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). In her decision, the Judge addressed documents contained in those responses. We resolve this assignment of error adversely to Applicant because his claim is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-03344 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 21, 2020). Applicant makes no other claim that the Judge committed error. In requesting reconsideration of the Judge’s decision, Applicant explains the reasons for his financial problems, asserts he is honestly trying to resolve the debts, and indicates the loss of his security clearance would negatively affect him. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo, and the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not a relevant consideration in evaluating an individual’s clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-02397 at 1-2 (App. Bd. May 6, 2020). The Board’s scope of review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties to determine whether the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Because Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error, the decision denying his request for a security clearance is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED.