CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01037 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01037denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01037

Jan 18, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor in his early 50s was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had accumulated multiple delinquent debts and judgments totaling significant amounts, which raised disqualifying conditions under Guideline F.

Further, the applicant falsified his security clearance application by failing to disclose these financial issues, leading to concerns under Guideline E. While some mitigating conditions were considered, they were ultimately insufficient to overcome the disqualifying factors.

The applicant's appeal was denied, with the Appeal Board affirming that the judge's decision was supported by the evidence. The Board concluded that the applicant's financial instability and failure to disclose debts were inconsistent with national security interests, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found favorably for the applicant on three delinquent debts.
AG ¶ 15rejectedPersonal ConductThe applicant's failure to disclose debts was deemed significant.

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 issuedAug 8, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 1, 2023
Decision dateJan 18, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Instability Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Affirmation of Denial Based on 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 and personal conduct. The applicant raised questions about the Judge's receipt of evidence and sought to clarify testimony. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant questioned whether the Judge received a proof of payment submitted post-hearing.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant sought to clarify and correct some of his testimony from the hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge received and considered the relevant evidence, articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, and did not commit harmful error.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — 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. 22-01037

)

) 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: January 18, 2024

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 August 8, 2022, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 November 1, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is in his early 50sand married, with two adult children. He served in the military in the 1980s. As a federal contractor, he has experienced brief periods of unemployment between contracts, with the longest period of three months occurring in 2015. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,700, three judgments totaling approximately $149,100, a foreclosure in about 2017, and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in about 2004. Under Guideline E, that SOR alleged that Applicant falsified his March 2020 security clearance application in that he deliberately failed to disclose the judgements, foreclosure, and delinquent debts described under Guideline F. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on three delinquent

debts and one judgement and adversely to him on the remaining Guideline F allegations and on the Guideline E allegations. On appeal, Applicant first questions whether the Judge received a proof of payment that he submitted post-hearing. Our review of the decision and record confirms that the Judge received and considered the document. Applicant also seeks to clarify and correct some of his testimony from the hearing and to provide further context to his financial issues. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski 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