CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00932 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00932

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date5/23/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-00932) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a senior program manager and budget analyst with a history of financial difficulties, including a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in 2013 that was later converted to a Chapter 7. The Department of Defense (DoD) denied her security clearance based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), citing multiple allegations of financial mismanagement, including failure to file federal and state income tax returns from 2015 to 2021 and significant tax debts totaling approximately $65,900.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to failing to file her tax returns for the specified years but claimed to have filed them in August 2022, although she did not provide sufficient documentation to verify this. The administrative judge found that while she had made some payments towards her tax debts, she had a lengthy history of financial issues and failed to demonstrate responsible financial behavior. The judge ruled against her, concluding that the disqualifying conditions outweighed any mitigating factors, particularly noting her lack of timely action to resolve her tax obligations and the absence of corroborating evidence for her claims.
The appeal board affirmed the judge's decision, stating that the findings were supported by adequate evidence and that the judge had reasonably interpreted the record. The board emphasized that the applicant's financial history and her failure to file tax returns in a timely manner indicated a lack of the good judgment and reliability required for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00932

May 23, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. Key concerns included a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and a failure to file tax returns for seven consecutive years, from 2015 to 2021. This resulted in significant tax debts.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's ongoing financial problems and a lack of demonstrated good judgment in managing his finances. The board specifically noted the lengthy duration of these financial issues as a disqualifying condition.

Ultimately, the applicant's security clearance was denied based on these financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The applicant must demonstrate that he has resolved his financial issues and is capable of exercising good judgment in financial matters.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 23, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Judgment in Financial Matters
Impact of Unresolved Financial Obligations on Security 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 a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations, including bankruptcy and tax delinquencies. The applicant challenged several findings of fact made by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that any errors were harmless.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge mischaracterized the scope of her financial problems.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's finding that she failed to provide proof of filing her federal return for TY 2015.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contested the Judge's conclusion that she did not provide state tax transcripts for any of the years in issue.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant disputed the Judge's finding that she made a false statement regarding her state tax balance.

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 findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the conclusions drawn were not arbitrary or capricious. The Board also noted that any errors identified were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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.