CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01227 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01227denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01227

Jan 29, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A 40-year-old disabled veteran was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to three delinquent credit card debts totaling approximately $35,000. The applicant attributed some of these debts to a lost wallet; however, the judge determined that the debts predated the wallet's loss, undermining this explanation.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to sufficiently address the delinquent debts in a reasonable manner, specifically citing Disqualifying Condition F.3. The judge found insufficient evidence of reasonable efforts to resolve the outstanding financial obligations.

Upon appeal, the denial was affirmed because the applicant did not present evidence of harmful error by the judge. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy 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 issuedJul 19, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 5, 2023
Decision dateJan 29, 2024

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
Standard for Granting Clearance 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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Administrative Judge erred in her decision. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — 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 that the Administrative Judge erred in denying her security clearance.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge examined the relevant evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Board did not find any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
James B. Norman
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. 22-01227

)

) 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 29, 2024

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 19, 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 December 5, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is 40 years old and married. She is a disabled veteran receiving $2,400 per month in veteran’s disability compensation after serving honorably in the U.S. military from 2002 to 2008. She was unemployed from 2008 until 2014, during which time she attended college and cared for her family. Beginning in 2014, she was employed as a civilian Government employee until she left that position in April 2019 to recover from surgery. Since December 2019, she has worked for a number of Government contractors. The SOR alleged three delinquent credit card debts totaling approximately $35,000. Applicant attributed these debts to the loss of her wallet and

credit cards; however, she acknowledged that the accounts had delinquencies that pre-dated that loss. The Administrative Judge concluded that although some of the debt may be attributable to unauthorized charges due to the loss of the credit cards and that Applicant undertook efforts to resolve this, Applicant had not sufficiently addressed the debts in a reasonable manner. Decision at 6. As such, she ruled adversely to Applicant as to the three allegations. On appeal, Applicant submits new evidence regarding the current status of the debts. 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: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board