CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00418 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00418denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00418

Jan 27, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The appeal board upheld this denial, finding the applicant had not sufficiently addressed the disqualifying conditions.

Under Guideline F, the applicant failed to demonstrate adequate efforts to resolve outstanding debts, specifically a significant automobile loan. While mitigating conditions related to financial issues were considered, they were not deemed sufficient to overcome the concerns.

Regarding Guideline G, the board determined that too little time had passed since the applicant's most recent DWI incidents to mitigate the associated security risks. Despite the consideration of mitigating factors for alcohol consumption, the board concluded that the applicant had not made sufficient progress in resolving these issues. Consequently, the original denial of the security clearance was affirmed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to resolve debts.
AG ¶ 22rejectedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant did not provide enough evidence to mitigate DWI concerns.

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 issuedApr 19, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldNov 14, 2022Close of record.
Decision dateJan 27, 2023Appeal decision.

Cite For

Insufficient Efforts to Resolve Financial Debts Under Guideline F
Mitigation of DWI Concerns Under Guideline G
Affirmation of Clearance Denial Based on National Security Interests

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 was filed by the applicant after the DoD denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and alcohol consumption issues. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis of the evidence and conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider significant record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

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
James E. Moody
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

APPEARANCES

___________________________________ ) In the matter of: ) ) ) ---- ) ISCR Case No. 21-00418 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: January 27, 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 April 19, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision⸺security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Subsequently, Department Counsel amended the SOR to add an additional allegation under Guideline G. Applicant requested a hearing. On November 14, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged 21 delinquent debts and two Chapter 13 bankruptcy dismissals. The Judge found against Applicant on one of the debts, a collection account arising from an automobile loan in the amount of about $11,000, and entered favorable findings for the remainder. Under Guideline G, the SOR alleged four instances of DWI. The Judge resolved two of the DWI allegations in Applicant’s favor, entering adverse findings for the two most recent charges arising in 2018 and 2020. In the analysis, the Judge found that Applicant had not

demonstrated efforts to resolve the automobile loan despite having the financial ability to do so. He also concluded that too little time had passed to mitigate concerns arising from the most recent instances of DWI. Under Guideline G, Applicant’s brief devotes a substantial amount of attention to problems and difficulties with the evidence underlying the two DWIs that the Judge resolved in his favor. Regarding the 2020 DWI, he reiterates record evidence about steps he took to ensure that he overcomes his problems with alcohol. Under Guideline F, Applicant discusses his efforts at resolving debts that the Judge had found in his favor, making no reference to the one that the Judge found against him. The thrust of his argument is that he is dedicated to resolving his financial problems. To the extent that Applicant is contending that the Judge failed to consider significant record evidence, we conclude that he has not rebutted the presumption to the contrary. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). Otherwise, Applicant has not raised an issue of harmful error by the Judge. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party raises such errors. Directive ⁋ E3.1.32. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this 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 Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 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 Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board