CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00157 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00157

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/3/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00157) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied due to financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had approximately $33,000 in delinquent debt across 18 consumer accounts. The applicant admitted to the debts, claiming they were incurred by his estranged wife without his knowledge, and noted that no payments had been made on these debts.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's admissions and supporting evidence demonstrated a significant inability to meet financial obligations, which fell under disqualifying conditions AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). Although the applicant argued that his financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond his control, the judge concluded that he had not acted responsibly in addressing his debts. The judge ruled against the applicant, stating that the applicant's financial issues raised concerns about his judgment and reliability, which are critical for security clearance eligibility. The applicant's appeal, which included claims of due process violations and bias, was ultimately denied, as the appeal board found no merit in these assertions.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-00157

Oct 3, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance application for a male in his late 40s, who had held a clearance since 2015, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from approximately $33,000 in delinquent debt across 18 accounts, which the applicant attributed to his estranged spouse and claimed was incurred without his knowledge.

Despite these claims, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence of responsible action taken by the applicant to mitigate the financial issues. The applicant admitted to the debts, and the total amount increased to over $45,000 by the time of the hearing, further indicating a lack of financial management.

The judge concluded that the applicant had not acted responsibly regarding his financial obligations, even considering circumstances beyond his control. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 30, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 5, 2024
Decision dateOct 3, 2024Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations
Due Process Considerations in Pro Se Hearings

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 argued due process violations, bias from the Judge, and inadequate whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends he was denied due process regarding his pro se status at the hearing.
Judge bias or partiality — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge demonstrated bias against him during the hearing.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserts that the Judge failed to conduct a thorough analysis under the Whole Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's handling of the case, affirming that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
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.