A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-00013
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 27, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $79,000. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate that the original decision was arbitrary or capricious, with the judges emphasizing the importance of national security in financial considerations.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $79,000.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption against granting clearance due to financial issues.
- The judges found no harmful error in the original decision and affirmed the importance of national security in clearance determinations.
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
- 2022-02-24
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-08-15 Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
- Decision date
- 2022-09-27 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that he had satisfied some debts and received financial counseling. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.
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. 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
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