CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02011 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02011denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-02011

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $44,000 in delinquent debts. The judge identified insufficient evidence of financial responsibility, specifically concerning the applicant's federal student loans and an auto loan.

The applicant had accumulated delinquent federal student loans and other debts totaling around $44,000. The judge determined that the applicant's payment history did not demonstrate a consistent effort to meet financial obligations. A single payment made on the auto loan was considered inadequate to establish a pattern of financial responsibility.

Despite minor inaccuracies in the applicant's presented payment history, the appeal was denied, affirming the original decision to deny the security clearance. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a), emphasizing the applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

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 1, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJul 18, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests

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. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding he made only one payment on an auto loan. The Board found the error harmless and affirmed the denial, noting that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
The Judge erroneously found that Applicant made only one payment on the auto loan.

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 that the Judge's erroneous finding regarding the number of payments made by the Applicant was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was supported by 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. 22-02011

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: July 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 1, 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 June 2, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged twelve financial concerns, including delinquent federal student loans, an auto loan, and a minor credit card debt, all totaling approximately $44,000. The Judge noted that Applicant’s student loans were assigned to the Government for collection between 2012 and 2015 – before the COVID-19 pandemic and related payment pause went into effect – and found that a concern remained that Applicant would “not make payments on his student loans if collection of payments is resumed.” Decision at 3. The Judge also found that Applicant made one payment on

the auto loan and paid the minor credit card debt in full, but concluded that “[e]vidence of past irresponsibility is not mitigated by payment of debts under pressure of qualifying for a security clearance.” Decision at 6. In consideration of the foregoing, the Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. With respect to the auto loan, Applicant asserted in his January 2023 SOR Response that he reached a payment agreement with the creditor; however, the Judge found that Applicant submitted no documentation in support of such an agreement. The Judge further found that Applicant “made one payment on his delinquent car loan, but he did not do so until he received the SOR and realized that his delinquent debts could prevent him from obtaining a security clearance.” Decision at 6. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s “single payment on the car loan falls short of a track record of timely payments.” Id. On appeal, Applicant challenges the Judge’s finding that he made only one payment on the car loan, arguing instead that he made “multiple payments” prior to the Judge’s review of his case. Appeal Brief at 1. Our review of the record, specifically documentation submitted with Applicant’s SOR Response, reflects two $50 payments to the creditor: one at the end of 2022 and one several days before submitting his Response. While the Judge’s finding that Applicant made only one instead of two payments is erroneous, the error was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01846 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011). Applicant also submits new evidence in the form of a narrative and documentary update on the status of his student loans and other debts not alleged in the SOR. 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