CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03949 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03949unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03949

Jan 12, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, faced a security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $25,000. The Administrative Judge initially found against the applicant on eight specific allegations related to these debts, citing Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed this decision, raising a due process concern. The core of the appeal was that new evidence regarding payments made on the outstanding debts had not been properly considered during the initial review.

As a result of the appeal, the case was remanded. This means the decision was sent back for reconsideration by the Administrative Judge, who was instructed to review the new evidence concerning the debt payments. Therefore, no final outcome on the security clearance denial has yet been reached.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 10, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 28, 2022
Decision dateJan 12, 2023Decision remanded for reconsideration.

Cite For

Due Process Considerations in Security Clearance Cases
Remand for New Evidence Related to Financial Obligations
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant raised a due process issue regarding the Judge's findings on evidence of debt payments. The Board remanded the case for the Judge to reopen the record and consider the new evidence submitted by the Applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantError sustained
Applicant raised a due process issue regarding the Judge's findings on evidence of debt payments.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge made an error regarding the consideration of evidence related to debt payments, which warranted a remand for further review.

Other

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must reopen the record to consider the evidence of debt payments submitted by the Applicant.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealProcedural compliance

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) ----- ) ISCR Case No. 19-03949 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: January 12, 2023 APPEAL BOARD DECISION AND REMAND ORDER 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 April 10, 2020, 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 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On November 28, 2022, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 $25,000. The Judge found against Applicant on eight of those allegations. On appeal, Applicant raises a due process issue that merits remand. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions and documents that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is generally prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, we may consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon questions of due process or jurisdiction. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01472 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 6, 2018). In her brief, Applicant notes that the Judge made findings that she presented no evidence of making payments towards certain alleged debts and asserts she emailed evidence of such payments to Department Counsel both before and after the designated date for the record to close. In the reply brief, Department Counsel stated he has no objection to the Board remanding the case to the Judge so that he may consider the submitted documents that are not contained in the record. Based on the above, we conclude the best course of action is to remand the case to the Judge to reopen the record to correct the above-identified error. Directive ¶ E3.1.35 requires the Judge to issue a new decision upon remand. The Board retains no continuing jurisdiction over a remanded decision. However, a decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28. to E3.1.35. See Directive ¶ E3.1.35. Order The Decision is REMANDED. 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 Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board