CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00443 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00443denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-00443

Dec 7, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A military veteran in his early thirties was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant had three large outstanding debts totaling approximately $59,000, which were identified as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a).

While the judge acknowledged mitigating circumstances for ten smaller debts, applying AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d), these did not outweigh the concerns regarding the larger financial obligations. The primary reason for denial was the applicant's inaction concerning these three major debts. The judge determined that the applicant had not taken sufficient steps to resolve marital debts or negotiate payment plans for these significant amounts.

This inaction was viewed as demonstrating a lack of maturity necessary for national security eligibility. The applicant's subsequent appeal arguments were deemed insufficient to overturn the initial decision, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's inaction on the three larger debts was not mitigated by his efforts on smaller 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 issuedMar 9, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 5, 2023after the record closed
Decision dateDec 7, 2023appeal decision

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Maturity in Resolving Financial Obligations for National Security Eligibility
Affirmation of a Judge's Decision When Evidence Is Adequately Considered and Explained

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding that his debts raised disqualifying security concerns. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the Judge erred in finding that his debts raised disqualifying security concerns.

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 is sustainable on this record. The Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
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. 23-00443

)

) 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: December 7, 2023

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 9, 2023, 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) of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On October 5, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 13 delinquent debts that totaled approximately $62,000. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on 10 smaller debts and adversely to Applicant on three large debts that total approximately $59,000. On appeal, Applicant asserts that the Judge erred in finding that his debts raised disqualifying security concerns. Applicant is in his early thirties. He married in 2013 and has a minor child from that relationship. Separated from his wife, Applicant and his cohabitant have recently had a child.

Applicant has not taken any steps to divorce his wife due to the legal costs. Applicant served in the military from 2009 through 2017. Following his honorable discharge, Applicant was unemployed for nine months before securing employment in August 2018. Applicant’s three debts of security concern arose during his transition from active duty and his separation from his wife. SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a charged-off balance of approximately $36,000 on a vehicle that Applicant voluntarily relinquished after his discharge from service, when he could no longer afford the monthly payments. Under the mistaken impression that returning the vehicle would satisfy the debt, and despite receiving bills from the creditor following the repossession, Applicant became aware of the outstanding balance in 2021 during his security clearance process. He last spoke to the creditor in January 2023 and has been unsuccessful in negotiating a payment plan. When Applicant and his wife separated, he was a co-signor on both a rental lease for their apartment and a loan for her vehicle. His wife subsequently moved out of the apartment, breaking the lease, and stopped making payments on the vehicle, which was then repossessed. Those two delinquent debts are approximately $4,500 (SOR ¶ 1.b) and $17,300 (SOR ¶ 1.h), respectively. Applicant acknowledges his responsibility for the two debts but is reluctant to pay them until he and his wife determine who is ultimately responsible. In determining that these three debts are not mitigated, the Judge wrote: I have given significant weight to Applicant’s service to the U.S. Government as a [servicemember] and as a government contractor. I have also given weight to the character evidence provided by Applicant and to the difficulties raised by his unemployment following his military discharge. However, his inaction regarding his three largest debts shows that he lacks the maturity for national security eligibility. He is not able or willing to face the difficult task of resolving his marital debts through a separation agreement or divorce. Similarly, he has not been willing to face the difficult task of resolving a large loan for a vehicle he voluntarily surrendered. [Decision at 8.] In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Rather, he disagrees with the Judge’s conclusion that his debts raise security concerns, arguing that he has demonstrated his willingness and ability to pay his debts and a history of meeting financial obligations. Applicant highlights his success at paying off the 10 alleged debts that were mitigated and his ongoing efforts to address the remining three larger debts. The Judge, however, discussed the issues that Applicant now raises on appeal. None of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020). 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board