A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00315
Appeal BoardDecided Jun 17, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $44,000. The Administrative Judge found a history of financial irresponsibility and denied the security clearance, which was upheld on appeal as the applicant did not challenge the findings of fact and submitted new evidence that could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $44,000.
- The judge noted a history of financial irresponsibility.
- The applicant did not challenge the judge's findings of fact on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-03-29
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-04-26
- Decision date
- 2024-06-17
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
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Administrative Judge found against the Applicant on eight of ten alleged debts, citing a history of financial irresponsibility. The Applicant appealed but did not challenge the findings of fact, instead submitting new evidence that was not considered. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
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. 23-00315 ) ) 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
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