A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01750
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 6, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to significant delinquent debts totaling approximately $116,000. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible financial behavior and did not make a good faith effort to repay his debts, leading to doubts about his security clearance suitability. The appeal was affirmed as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior regarding his debts.
- The applicant failed to make a good faith effort to repay his debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
- F2 Financial Considerationsraised
- F3 Financial Considerationsraised
- F4 Financial Considerationsraised
- F5 Financial Considerationsraised
- F6 Financial Considerationsraised
- F7 Financial Considerationsraised
- F8 Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-09-30
- Answer filed
- Pro se representation
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2024-03-06 Appeal 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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