A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-01375
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 9, 2023 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including a dismissed bankruptcy and significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $322,000. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support claims of resolution efforts, and the judges affirmed the original decision, emphasizing the need for national security consistency.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to the allegations of financial concerns.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support claims of resolution efforts.
- The judges found the original decision consistent with national security standards.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-10-13
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-09-30 Record closed before the hearing.
- Decision date
- 2023-01-09 Appeal 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. 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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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