A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00799
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 21, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to financial issues, specifically seven delinquent accounts totaling approximately $31,000. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error in the original decision, which found insufficient evidence of responsible financial management despite some circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's decision.
- Insufficient evidence of responsible financial management was provided by the applicant.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2024-08-29
- Decision date
- 2024-10-21
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party to Demonstrate Harmful Error
- Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with 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 applicant argued that the decision was based on an incomplete understanding of his financial efforts. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.
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. 23-00799
)
) 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: October 21, 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 August 29, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged seven delinquent automobile and consumer accounts that have been charged off for approximately $31,000. The Judge found against Applicant on all allegations, noting that, while his financial problems were caused partially by circumstances beyond his control, Applicant provided insufficient evidence of having acted responsibly given those circumstances.
There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. See ISCR Case No. 00-0050, 2001 WL 1044490 at *1 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). On appeal, Applicant requests reconsideration of the decision, arguing that it was “based on an incomplete understanding of [his] efforts to address [his] financial obligations.” Appeal Brief. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. 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 has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. “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.” AG ¶ 2(b).
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-00799 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board