CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01750 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01750denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01750

Mar 6, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $116,000 in significant delinquent debts. Representing himself, the applicant faced several disqualifying conditions (F1-F8) related to his financial history.

The judge determined that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible financial behavior and failed to make a good faith effort to repay his debts. These findings raised doubts about his suitability for a security clearance.

The denial was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not identify any harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The core reasons for denial remained the applicant's lack of responsible financial conduct and insufficient effort to resolve his outstanding debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations
F2raisedFinancial Considerations
F3raisedFinancial Considerations
F4raisedFinancial Considerations
F5raisedFinancial Considerations
F6raisedFinancial Considerations
F7raisedFinancial Considerations
F8raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error.”
— ISCR Case No. 00-0050, 2001 WL 1044490 at *1 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 30, 2022
Answer filed—Pro se representation
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 6, 2024Appeal affirmed

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Demonstrate Harmful Error
Lack of Good Faith Effort in Debt Repayment as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions

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 did not assert any specific harmful errors in the Administrative Judge's decision but reiterated repayment efforts. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision as no harmful error was alleged.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha LaFaye — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not raise any claims of harmful error, and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 22-01750

)

) 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: March 6, 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 September 30, 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 January 11, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha LaFaye denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged eight delinquent debts, including Federal student loan, consumer, utility, and auto loan accounts placed for collection or past due. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor on two of the allegations and against him on the remaining six debts, which totaled approximately $116,000. Unable to find that Applicant acted responsibly under the circumstances or made a good faith effort to repay his debts, the Judge concluded that the record left doubts about Applicant’s security clearance suitability.

There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. See ISCR Case No. 00-0050, 2001 WL 1044490 at *1 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error on the part of the Judge, but rather reiterates his repayment efforts and requests reconsideration of the decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Applicant has not alleged any such harmful error. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.

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