ISCR Case No. 22-02208

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 22-02208

)

) 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: April 18, 2024

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 February 14, 2023, 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 February 22, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant has five charged-off debts totaling about $43,000. Prior to hearing, the Government withdrew a Guideline E allegation that cross- alleged the same debts. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the Guideline F allegations. On appeal, Applicant asserts two errors of fact in the Judge’s decision. He also provides further context and clarification of his testimony and seeks the reversal of the adverse security clearance decision.

Applicant is in his early-50s and has been employed by a defense contractor since 2014. He married in 2007 and has four children. He retired from the U.S. Navy in 2011 and remained unemployed before obtaining his current employment. While separated from his spouse, they both accumulated delinquent debts alleged in the SOR as a result of financial mismanagement and spending beyond their means. The Judge found that Applicant failed to act on two credit-card debts; stopped payments on another credit-card debt that resulted in a default judgment and involuntary garnishment; and settled and paid two additional credit-card debts after they were charged off in 2018. Applicant testified that he has not sought or received financial counseling. When asked why he had not sought counseling, he responded, “I guess I’m a little stubborn and I don’t like to have help.” Tr. at 45. The Judge noted that Applicant paid $22,000 for a car for his 16th daughter’s birthday. In post-hearing submissions, Applicant resolved one debt via an involuntary garnishment, which does not qualify as a good-faith resolution, and he took no significant action to resolve four other debts until he realized that his security clearance was in jeopardy. Applicant claims in his appeal that the Judge erred by stating he had no financial counseling, stating that he had received financial counseling from the Navy before he retired but was never able to implement the strategies suggested. Appeal Brief (AB) at 1. In testimony, Department Counsel asked Applicant, “Have you ever received financial counseling?” to which Applicant answered, “No sir.” Applicant was then asked if he ever looked into financial management or financial counseling though the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Applicant answered, “No sir.” When asked if he ever thought about it, he said he had, but he has not used such a program because “I guess I’m a little stubborn and I don’t like to have help, I guess.” Tr. at 45. We find the Judge’s decision is consistent with Applicant’s testimony. 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 also contends the Judge erred by stating he bought a car for his daughter. Applicant’s statement of error is correct, but harmless. In testimony, Applicant stated that he bought a new car “a few months ago” for “himself,” and he gave his other car to his daughter for her 16th birthday. Tr. at 48. The Judge’s confusion regarding the possession of any particular vehicle is irrelevant to the ultimate findings with regard to Applicant’s failure to resolve delinquent debts in a timely manner. 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).

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, 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