CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02694 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-02694denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02694

Jul 18, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $40,500, which included significant student loans. The judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible management of her financial obligations, citing her admission to the debts and the purchase of an expensive new car that further increased her financial burden.

The applicant appealed the decision, but the appeal did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's initial findings or the weighing of evidence. Specifically, the appeal failed to show that the judge erred in concluding that the applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing her financial issues.

Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED, upholding the initial determination based on the applicant's admitted delinquent debts and lack of demonstrated financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedFeb 8, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se) in the proceedings.
Hearing heldMay 25, 2023After the record closed.
Decision dateJul 18, 2023Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of New Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standards for Weighing Evidence in Clearance Decisions

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 concerned the denial of security clearance eligibility based on financial considerations, specifically 15 delinquent debts totaling about $40,500. The applicant admitted to the debts but argued that the Judge erred in weighing the evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in weighing the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was sustainable on the record, affirming the denial of security clearance eligibility.

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. 20-02694

)

) 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: July 18, 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 February 8, 2022, DoD issued an amended 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 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 25, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello issued a decision denying Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the amended SOR alleged that Applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling about $40,500, which includes consumer debts and over $28,000 in student loans. In responding to that SOR, Applicant admitted each of the allegations. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing the alleged debts, noting that she recently purchased an expensive new car that significantly raised her monthly debt obligations. The Judge found against Applicant on ten of the alleged debts, including the four alleged student loans.

Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence, i.e., documents from outside the record, that we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. A portion of her brief focuses on the loans for her house and new car. Both of those debts, which were addressed in the decision, were not alleged in the SOR. The Judge, however, noted, “Any derogatory information that was not alleged in the SOR will not be considered for disqualifying purposes, but may be considered in the application of mitigating conditions, in making a credibility determination, and in a whole-person analysis.” Decision at 4-5. We find no error in the Judge’s consideration of the house and car loans. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-07369 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 16, 2017) (setting forth the limited purposes for which non-alleged matters may be considered). The remainder of Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. These arguments fail 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 that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he warrants any remedial action. 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