A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00118
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 18, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, including multiple delinquent debts and bankruptcies. Despite acknowledging his financial struggles and efforts to improve his situation, the judges found his financial management inadequate and affirmed the denial on appeal, citing a lack of trust in his ability to resolve outstanding debts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to having multiple delinquent debts and a history of bankruptcies.
- The judge found the applicant's financial management inadequate and lacking a track record of responsible debt repayment.
- The applicant's intentions to resolve financial problems were deemed insufficient without a demonstrated history of good-faith efforts to pay debts.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- F.3 The person has made a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-03-28
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held
- No hearing was conducted.
- Decision date
- 2024-03-18 Decision affirmed on appeal.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
- Affirmation of Denial Based on Lack of Harmful Error in the Judge's Decision
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 under Guideline F. The applicant, representing himself, did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge but reiterated his efforts to resolve his financial issues. The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.
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. 23-00118
)
) 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 18, 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 March 28, 2023, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for 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 Jun. 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On December 5, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had three delinquent consumer debts; that he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2014 that was discharged in 2015; and that he filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcies in 2019 and 2021 that were dismissed. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation with explanations. The Judge found against him on all of the allegations. In summarizing the decision, the Judge acknowledged that Applicant was supporting a large family with inconsistent income and employment, has health issues, but paid some debts and received financial counseling. However, after getting a fresh start from a 2015 bankruptcy, he financially overextended himself. Applicant still owes a number of debts, including three alleged in the SOR. His intentions to resolve financial problems in the future are not a substitute for a track record of debt repayment or other responsible approaches. He does not have a track record that would enable the Judge to trust that he will pay the remaining SOR debts, and he failed to act responsibly under the circumstances or make a good-faith effort to pay his debts. Applicant’s appeal reargues the case that was raised in response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material and discusses new evidence. He does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error, but that the Judge was not “privy to the ongoing efforts by myself to correct past circumstances and behavior which led to this my financial circumstances.” Appeal Brief (AB) at 1. Applicant reiterated his personal and professional responsibilities and reliability despite his financial problems, the hardship reasons for his financial difficulties, the financial “mentorship” he is receiving, and his current efforts to resolve debts. AB at 1-2. He attached various documents attesting to his debt resolution efforts since the decision was issued. We note that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Our review of the record indicates that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, AG ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Because Applicant has not alleged harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable.
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: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board