CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01375 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01375denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01375

Jan 9, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. These included a dismissed bankruptcy and approximately $322,000 in delinquent debts. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition F.3.

During the appeal, the applicant admitted to the financial concerns but failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his claims of resolution efforts. The judges affirmed the original decision, finding it consistent with national security standards.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

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 national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 13, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 30, 2022Record closed before the hearing.
Decision dateJan 9, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Documentation in Resolving Debts
Affirmation of Decisions Consistent with National Security Standards

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations, specifically a dismissed bankruptcy and multiple delinquent debts. The applicant argued that the judge did not consider his credit score and mitigation efforts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge did not consider his current credit score and efforts to mitigate the alleged security concerns.

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. Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error or arbitrary weighing of evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 21-01375

)

) 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: January 9, 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 October 13, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On September 30, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition was dismissed upon his motion in 2020 and that he had six delinquent debts totaling about $322,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation with an explanation. The Judge found against Applicant on each of the allegations. In her analysis, the Judge noted the lack of documentation corroborating Applicant’s claimed resolution efforts. See ISCR Case No. 19-01599 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020) (it is reasonable for a Judge to expect an applicant to present corroborating documentation of actions taken to resolve debts).

On appeal, Applicant claims the Judge did not consider his current credit score and unspecified information of his efforts to mitigate the alleged security concerns. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. None of Applicant’s 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). Applicant failed to establish that 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 Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board