CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00013 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00013denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00013

Sep 27, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $79,000. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption against granting clearance, which arose from these significant financial issues.

The appeal was subsequently denied, as the applicant did not demonstrate that the original decision was arbitrary or capricious. The judges found no harmful error in the initial determination and affirmed the importance of national security in all clearance decisions, particularly concerning financial stability.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, reflecting the applicant's inability to mitigate concerns related to his substantial outstanding debts.

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 issuedFeb 24, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 15, 2022Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
Decision dateSep 27, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions
Affirmation of the Original Decision When No Harmful Error Is Established

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 whose security clearance was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that his financial issues were beyond his control and that he had made efforts to resolve them. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that his financial problems were largely beyond his control and that he had satisfied some debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge did not commit any harmful error and that the decision was sustainable on the record, affirming the denial of the security clearance.

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
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. 22-00013

)

) 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: September 27, 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 24, 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 August 15, 2022, after considering the written record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 ten delinquent debts totaling about $79,000. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the alleged debts. In his brief, Applicant asserts that he responded to the SOR on February 24, 2022, and his company failed to submit it. We note Applicant’s SOR Response as well as his forum request dated February 24, 2022, are in the record. He further contends his SOR Response contains proof that he satisfied three of the debts and received financial counseling. To the extent Applicant may be claiming his due process rights were infringed, he has failed to establish a prima facie case that he was denied any due process

rights afforded him under the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01237 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 5, 2017). Applicant further argues that his financial problems were largely beyond his control, occurred under circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and will be resolved through good-faith efforts. None of his arguments, however, are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 13, 2022). Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. 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