CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02087 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date7/15/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 22-02087) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-02087denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-02087

Jul 15, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing themselves, was denied a clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial was affirmed on appeal, emphasizing unresolved financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant had multiple bankruptcies and outstanding tax debts that raised significant concerns regarding their financial responsibility. These issues were cited as the primary disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20.

Despite favorable findings regarding alcohol consumption (Guideline G) and criminal conduct (Guideline J), the persistent financial concerns led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 15, 2024

Cite For

Financial Concerns Leading to Denial Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Unfavorable Decisions Regarding Financial Issues
Impact of Multiple Bankruptcies 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 was in response to a denial of security clearance based on financial, alcohol, and criminal conduct concerns. The Applicant did not allege harmful error but sought reconsideration of his financial situation. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

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

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline GGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed 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
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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 22-02087

)

) 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: July 15, 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 January 25, 2023, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline (J (Criminal 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 May 16, 2024, after conducting a hearing, 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. The SOR alleged that Applicant had criminal and alcohol related offenses, and financial concerns including two Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings, a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge, tax debts owed to Federal and state tax authorities, and a charged-off credit card debt. Additionally, the SOR alleged that Applicant was sued by various homeowners and condominium associations for non payment of dues in at least 11 separate civil actions and that he was the subject of four foreclosure proceedings. Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations with explanations. The Judge found in his favor for the Guideline G and J allegations and against him on all of the Guideline F allegations.

In his appeal brief, Applicant does not allege the Judge committed harmful error, but argues for reconsideration of certain efforts he has made to resolve debts, includes additional argument as to the current status of some debts, and submits new and previously considered evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm. Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in his mid-40sand has been employed by a defense contractor since 2022. He is married and has two children. Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2010, and Chapter 13 filings in 2020 and 2021; both dismissed. His bankruptcies were primarily filed because of a failed property management business venture that resulted in judgments and foreclosures of rental property resulting in a discharge of about $1.6 million in debt. Applicant was also sued by various homeowners and condominium associations for nonpayment of dues in at least 11 civil actions since 2009. He was the subject of four foreclosure actions; two in 2009 and two in 2013 and 2017, including for his current home for which he is behind about a year in mortgage payments. He is also delinquent in Federal and state income taxes. The Judge found that Applicant has a history of irresponsible financial behavior that was not sufficiently mitigated.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant argues for reconsideration of certain efforts he has made to resolve debts, includes additional argument as to the current status of some debts, and provides additional evidence for consideration. We have often stated that a security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s debts. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. E.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08049 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 22, 2008). The scope of Guideline F encompasses not only an Applicant’s current financial situation, but also extends to his or her financial history. As a general rule, an applicant is not required to be debt-free nor to develop a plan for paying off all debts immediately or simultaneously. E.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 31, 2011). However, an applicant must act responsibly given his or her circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by concomitant conduct even if it may only provide for the payment of debts one at a time. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). With regard to additional or clarifying evidence presented on appeal, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo. 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 in ISCR Case No. 22-02087 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: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board