CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01487 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01487denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01487

Jan 23, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's financial history and related conduct.

Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve outstanding debts. Furthermore, the judges noted questionable judgment regarding financial obligations, which included late payments on an official travel card. These issues were identified as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 15.

Ultimately, the judges found insufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised under both guidelines, leading to the affirmation of the security clearance denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal 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 issuedJul 19, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateJan 23, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts Under Guideline F
Questionable Judgment Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Importance of National Security Interests 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the judge did not consider all evidence, but the Board found no harmful error and affirmed the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge did not consider all 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

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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. 21-01487

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: January 23, 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 July 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 E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 16, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s SOR alleges twelve delinquent debts, to include student loans and consumer debts. The Judge resolved four of them favorably to Applicant but entered adverse findings regarding the remainder. Applicant attributed his financial problems to a period of unemployment from November 2010 until May 2011. He was voluntarily unemployed during the winter of 2018 2019 as well. In addition, the Judge found against Applicant on a Guideline E allegation that in

2017 he had been late in paying his official travel card. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated that his financial problems were due to circumstances beyond his control, nor had he shown a good-faith effort to resolve the debts that the Judge found against him. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s failure to have paid his travel card evidences questionable judgment. Applicant’s brief asserts matters from outside the record, including written character references. We are not permitted to consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ⁋ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to evidence of his work history, his military service, and his clearance history. To the extent that he is arguing that the Judge did not consider this evidence, we conclude that he has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. 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). Applicant states that he does not possess information that would make him a likely target for foreign intelligence officials. However, the concern under Guideline F is not simply that an applicant might be tempted to compromise classified information in order to pay his debts. The Directive states that failure to meet financial obligations may indicate a lack of good judgment or an unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, thereby raising questions about the applicant’s ability to protect classified information. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18. See also ISCR Case No. 15-01737 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 14, 2017). Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge committed harmful error. 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