CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01139 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01139denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01139

Oct 17, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied for an applicant, a man in his mid-30s with advanced degrees, under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 29 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $85,000, which demonstrated ongoing financial irresponsibility.

The judge found insufficient evidence that these debts had been resolved and noted a lack of a meaningful financial track record from the applicant. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were raised.

While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 20(e) were considered, the applicant's claims of mitigating circumstances were deemed unconvincing and lacked adequate supporting documentation. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing these reasons.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a good faith effort to resolve debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's ongoing unpaid debts demonstrated a continuing course of conduct.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 17, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 1, 2023
Decision dateOct 17, 2023Appeal decision

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Ongoing Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor
The Importance of a Meaningful Financial Track Record in Security Clearance Cases

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 security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge improperly weighed evidence and failed to consider mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued the Judge improperly weighed the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence in mitigation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended the Judge did not appropriately consider mitigating evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of security clearance eligibility based on substantial evidence and proper application of the law.

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
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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. 20-01139

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

Date: October 17, 2023

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 August 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 the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 1, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 29 delinquent debts totaling approximately $85,000. The Judge found against Applicant on 25 allegations, and in his favor on four allegations. On appeal, Applicant argues the Judge improperly weighed the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence in mitigation by claiming the Judge was unaware of certain mitigating conditions and did not consider payments made on debts since the SOR was issued. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

Judge’s Findings and Analysis Applicant is in his mid-30sand holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He is married and has three children. He has worked for his current employer since 2018 and has never held security clearance eligibility. The Judge found that much of Applicant’s debt arose from a failed business he financed with personal, unsecured credit. He financed about $59,000 for the business that remained open for less than a year. Upon the failure of the business, Applicant said he hired a debt-consolidation company in 2017 to address about $38,000 in unsecured debt, and he made payments for about two years in accordance with the agreement. When the company ceased business in his state, he settled some debts on his own, and had some accounts removed from his credit report. After being notified of the importance of resolving delinquent debts during his security eligibility investigation, Applicant hired a second credit repair company in March 2021. As of March 2023, 12 SOR accounts were enrolled at 0%, one account was enrolled at 100%, one account was paid in full, and one account was being “reworked.” Applicant had deposited about $11,000 into the plan and was scheduled to make two deposits of about $427 in March, and one in April 2023. According to Applicant, the agreement required recurring deposits of $840 per month for 60 months. The Judge found that Applicant has not made the full payments of $840 per month since beginning the program and failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence of resolution of his debts, payments to the credit-consolidation company, or evidence showing the actions of a credit repair company. He noted that debts that were removed from a credit report do not necessarily reflect satisfactory resolution, and there is insufficient evidence of contacts with creditors or other efforts to resolve debts. Although the Judge credited Applicant with hiring the second credit repair company to address 15 of the SOR debts, and for payments toward other debts that were resolved, the timing of his actions, limited details of the agreement, and discrepancies between his claimed payments and documented payments were insufficient to fully establish that he has adhered to a good faith effort to resolve delinquent debts.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Applicant contends the Judge was unaware of or did not appropriately consider mitigating evidence of his use of debt consolidation and repair companies to resolve his debt and did not consider the debts he resolved since issuance of the SOR. Applicant’s challenges to the Judge’s findings include to a large measure a disagreement with the manner in which the Judge weighed the evidence. Applicant mischaracterizes the Judge’s statements during the hearing as a lack of understanding of the mitigating conditions with regard to debt resolution efforts. Specifically, we find no basis for Applicant’s contention that the Judge did not know that a debt resolution program was an acceptable way of resolving debts under Guideline F mitigating conditions. The record reflects that the Judge painstakingly reviewed the mitigating conditions with Applicant in light of the evidence submitted at the hearing and suggested further documentation that Applicant could submit to bolster his case in mitigation. See, e.g., Tr. at 69

86. To the extent that Applicant is contending the Judge mis-weighed or did not consider record evidence, we find no merit in those assertions. None of his arguments 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). The Judge correctly cited ISCR Case No. 14-05803 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 7, 2016) for the proposition that the absence of debts on a recent credit report is not meaningful evidence of debt resolution because debts may be removed for various reasons such as the passage of time. It is also well established that an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts demonstrate a continuing course of conduct and can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2017). Moreover, the Board has held that until an applicant has a meaningful financial track record, it cannot be said as a matter of law that he has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolved debts. The phrase “meaningful track record” necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment on debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). Promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of timely debt payments and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. 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 the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also AG ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board