CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00286 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00286denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00286

Feb 6, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,500. The Administrative Judge identified Disqualifying Condition F.3, noting the applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations.

While Mitigating Condition F.2, indicating the debts were not recent, was considered, it was insufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve the outstanding debts. His claims of not receiving a specific form due to moving were directly contradicted by email evidence presented during the proceedings.

Ultimately, the lack of demonstrated effort to address the significant delinquent debt, combined with the rebuttal of his explanations, led to the denial of the security clearance on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Applicant's Control.The judge concluded that the applicant failed to show he acted responsibly under the circumstances.

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 issuedMay 5, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 22, 2022Decision made by Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera.
Decision dateFeb 6, 2023Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts Under Guideline F
Rebuttal of Claims Regarding Due Process Rights
Emphasis on National Security Considerations in Clearance Eligibility.

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that he had made efforts to resolve his debts and was not a security risk. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial of the clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he had taken efforts to resolve his financial problems and claimed he was not a security risk.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit any harmful error and that the decision was sustainable on the record, with a satisfactory explanation provided for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 22-00286

)

) 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: February 6, 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 May 5, 2022, 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 initially requested a hearing, but later requested a decision on the written record. On December 22, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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 had ten delinquent debts totaling about $24,500. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two medical debts totaling about $240. The Judge noted that Applicant presented no documentary evidence of any good-faith efforts to pay, settle, dispute, or otherwise resolve his delinquent debts before or after receipt of the SOR. Although Applicant experienced conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial problem, the Judge concluded that Applicant failed to show he had acted responsibly under the circumstances.

On July 21, 2022, Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant. It notified him that he had 30 days from its receipt to submit objections and any additional material he would like the Judge to consider. In the decision, the Judge noted Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. On appeal, Applicant indicates that he moved to a new location on August 1, 2022, and claims that he did not receive the FORM but would have replied had he received it. The record, however, contains emails that sufficiently rebut that claim. On August 19, 2022, a DOHA Legal Assistant sent Applicant an email inquiring whether he received an “Eyes Only” package sent to him on the date noted above. On August 20 and 22, 2022, Applicant sent emails advising the DOHA Legal Assistant that he received the “eyes only package.” Based on our review of the record, we concluded that Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case that he was denied any due process rights afforded him under the Directive. In his appeal brief, Applicant highlights the efforts he has taken to resolve his financial problems and argues that he has never been a security risk. None of his arguments, however, 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). He also asserts that he does not have access to classified information. The fact that Applicant previously did not have access to classified information while holding a security clearance is not a relevant consideration in determining his further security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01098 at 2 (App. Bd. May 11, 2020). 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 the national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board