CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00377 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00377denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00377

Jul 31, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant in his early 60s. The primary concern was approximately $56,000 in delinquent debts, which included federal student loans and credit card debt. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline paragraphs 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d).

The judge determined that the applicant had not made concerted efforts to resolve these delinquent debts, despite possessing ample financial resources. Furthermore, the applicant failed to present a well-developed financial plan that would address the government's concerns regarding his financial stability.

Consequently, the judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the financial concerns. The security clearance was denied, and this decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(d)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

““Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.””
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 31, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility
Affirmation of Denial Based on Substantial Evidence Regarding Financial Concerns

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 security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant challenged the findings regarding the amount of delinquent debt and the Judge's assessment of his financial situation. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
Allison Marie

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. 22-00377

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: July 31, 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, 2022, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On July 7, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR, as amended, alleged seven financial concerns, including two delinquent federal student loans, credit card debt, and a minor medical account, all totaling approximately $56,000. The Judge found favorably on one credit card debt, but against Applicant on the remaining six allegations.

Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in his early 60s. He has been married since 1982 and has two adult children. Applicant earned an associate degree in 1993. He has worked for his current employer since 2007 and has held a security clearance since 2010. As of the hearing, Applicant’s annual income was approximately $148,000 and he had a monthly net remainder of about $3,000 after all other expenses were paid. The Judge found that none of the mitigating conditions were fully applicable. Applicant displayed “no well-developed financial plan or refined budget in place to aid him in mitigating the Government’s financial concerns over his delinquent student loans,” and that, with the exception of one consumer debt resolved for under $2,000 (SOR ¶ 1.f), Applicant had “made no concerted efforts to resolve any of his delinquent consumer and medical debts with the ample resources available to him over the past three years.” Decision at 7. The Judge concluded that, in consideration of the foregoing, Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial delinquencies.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Applicant first challenges the amount alleged as delinquent for his student loan at SOR ¶ 1.cand asserts that the correct balance is about $10,455. Indeed, when the SOR was originally issued, a typographical error inaccurately alleged that this debt carried a balance of about $16,309. In recognition of this, the Government moved to amend SOR ¶ 1.cto reflect the correct amount of $10,455, and that motion was granted. Applicant’s challenge in this regard is therefore moot. Applicant also asserts that the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.fhas been paid; however, the Judge found favorably on this allegation and therefore this challenge is also moot. Applicant next takes issue with the Judge’s finding that his annual income was $148,000, arguing that this amount includes benefits paid by his employer and that his annual income is actually only about $138,000. When asked about his income and expenses at hearing, Applicant testified that his annual salary was $148,000 and that his monthly net income was roughly $8,000. Tr. at 38, 51. The findings regarding Applicant’s income and available financial resources were therefore based on substantial evidence, namely Applicant’s own unrebutted testimony. To the extent that Applicant is attempting to revise that amount on appeal, such a revision amounts to new evidence and fails, as set forth further below. Finally, Applicant submits new evidence in the form of a narrative and documentary update on the status of his student loans and other debts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which 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). “Any doubt concerning personnel

being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b).

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board