A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00592
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 20, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial concerns, including misappropriation of funds and multiple delinquent debts. Despite resolving some debts, the judge found that the financial security concerns were not fully mitigated, leading to the denial being affirmed on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant misappropriated funds from her military unit's booster club in 2019.
- The applicant had multiple delinquent debts, with only one being resolved in her favor.
- The judge concluded that financial security concerns were not fully mitigated despite some debts being resolved.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recent and the applicant has resolved some debts.applied
- AG ¶ 20(c) The applicant has taken significant steps to address her financial issues.rejected
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
- 2023-04-12
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Decision date
- 2024-03-20 Appeal 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
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.
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. 23-00592
)
) 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 20, 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 April 12, 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 February 20, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant misappropriated funds from her military unit’s booster club in 2019 and that she had seven delinquent debts. The Judge found against Applicant on the allegation that she misappropriated funds and on one delinquent debt and found in Applicant’s favor on the remaining six debts. Acknowledging that Applicant had resolved many of her SOR debts and that the booster club incident is several years old, the Judge nevertheless concluded that the financial security concerns were not fully mitigated in light of the prior conduct and ongoing delinquencies.
On appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact but submits the reasons that she “believe[s] his judgment is flawed.” Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant reiterates evidence that was submitted at hearing and explicitly addressed by the Judge in his decision. To the extent that she disagrees with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, none of her arguments are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.132.3 Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that she should be granted any relief on appeal. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on the record. “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). See also AG ¶ 2(b): “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