CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00592 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00592

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/20/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00592) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DoD), which was denied based on concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant misappropriated funds from her military unit's booster club in 2019 and had seven delinquent debts.
The administrative judge found that the applicant misappropriated funds and had one delinquent debt, while ruling in her favor on six other debts. Although the applicant had resolved many of her debts and the booster club incident occurred several years prior, the judge determined that the financial security concerns were not fully mitigated due to the applicant's past conduct and ongoing delinquencies.
On appeal, the applicant did not contest the judge's factual findings but argued that the judgment was flawed. The appeal board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's decision-making process. The board affirmed the judge's ruling, stating that the decision was consistent with national security interests and that any doubts regarding personnel eligibility should be resolved in favor of national security.
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. 23-00592

Mar 20, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to concerns including misappropriation of funds and multiple delinquent debts.

In 2019, the applicant misappropriated funds from her military unit's booster club. Additionally, she had several delinquent debts, only one of which was resolved in her favor. While some debts were addressed, the judge determined that the financial security concerns were not sufficiently mitigated.

Consequently, the judge's decision to deny the security clearance was affirmed on appeal, citing the unmitigated financial issues as the basis for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and the Applicant Has Resolved Some Debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Taken Significant Steps to Address Her Financial Issues.The judge found 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 issuedApr 12, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMar 20, 2024Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Mismanagement Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Financial Delinquencies on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of a Denial on Appeal When No Harmful Errors Are Found 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations, including misappropriation of funds and delinquent debts. The Applicant did not challenge the Judge's findings but argued that the judgment was flawed. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — 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 argued that the Judge's judgment was flawed.

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 did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-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.