CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01804 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01804denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01804

Sep 18, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent debts exceeding $20,000. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding his financial obligations.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to four delinquent debts totaling over $20,000. He did not initiate payments on two of these debts until after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued, and he made no payments at all on the other two debts.

The decision highlighted that the applicant failed to take responsible action to address his financial obligations until his security clearance was in jeopardy. The appeal affirmed the denial, citing the unresolved debts and lack of timely payments as the basis for the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of responsible action regarding his debts.

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 issuedDec 13, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 28, 2023
Decision dateSep 18, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Financial Obligations
Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Timely Payments and Unresolved Debts.

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 admitted to having delinquent debts and argued that the Judge made errors in findings and did not consider certain evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged harmful errors in the Judge's findings and decision.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on substantial evidence and proper procedures followed by the Judge.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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. 22-01804

)

) 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: September 18, 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 December 13, 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 the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On July 28, 2023, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant had four delinquent debts totaling over $20,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the allegations. The Judge summarized the case as follows: Applicant did not begin to pay on two of his delinquent debts until after the SOR was issued. He did not make any payments on the other two delinquent debts. He

did not take responsible action to address his financial obligations until his security clearance was in peril, and he still has unresolved delinquent debt. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. [Decision at 1.] Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions and documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. In fact, some of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. We are prohibited from considering that new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29 (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”). Applicant is apparently challenging the Judge’s findings of fact by stating that he did not recall interviews with an investigator in March 2020 or in November 2021. Applicant is correct that there is no document in the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) showing that Applicant was interviewed in March 2020. However, the summary of his interview with an investigator in November 2021 is included in FORM, Item 3. The typographical error referencing a March 2020 interview instead of the actual November 2021 interview is harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02581 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2020). Applicant also asserts the Judge erred in finding that he has no children, noting he has a stepson, and in failing to find that he held a clearance since 1996. We find no merit in these latter assertions of error because Applicant failed to list that he had a stepchild in his security clearance application and only listed the granting of his last clearance in 2011. FORM, Item 2 at 21 and 31-32. The Judge’s findings that Applicant had no children and has held a clearance since 2011 were supported by the evidence that was presented to her. Applicant further contends the Judge failed to consider some evidence that he submitted in an email in July 2023. We note that Applicant’s FORM Response contains several documents showing that he was making payments, including as late as July 2023, on two of the alleged debts. The Judge made findings that Applicant was making payments on these debts and that they are being resolved. 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. 22-02225 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 27, 2023). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he warrants any remedial action. 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 the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also AG ¶ 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 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