CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00315 — CASE

ISCR Case 23-00315denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-00315

Jun 17, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant with a history of financial irresponsibility. The applicant, representing himself, had 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $44,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

The Administrative Judge found a pattern of financial irresponsibility and denied the clearance. On appeal, the applicant did not challenge the judge's findings of fact and submitted new evidence, which could not be considered.

Ultimately, the denial was upheld, as no mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were found to outweigh the established financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge concluded that the financial security concerns were not fully mitigated.

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 29, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2024
Decision dateJun 17, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant did not challenge the findings of fact but submitted new evidence regarding debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision-making process.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-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. 23-00315 ) ) 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: June 17, 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 March 29, 2023, 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 April 26, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $44,000. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on two allegations and against him on the remaining eight debts which included co-signed loans that he subsequently refused to pay, child support arrearages, and other consumer debts. Noting that Applicant “has a history of financial irresponsibility,” the Judge concluded that the financial security concerns were not fully mitigated. Decision at 6–7. On appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact but submits new evidence regarding the current status of his debts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The

remainder of Applicant’s brief amounts to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. None of Applicant’s arguments, however, are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. 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. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. “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.”

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: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board