CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02174 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02174denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-02174

Apr 30, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance due to significant financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $42,000.

The Administrative Judge initially found in the applicant's favor regarding two of these debts but ruled against him on the remaining seven. This decision was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of debt resolution and to demonstrate responsible financial behavior.

The appeal affirmed the denial, upholding the Administrative Judge's findings. The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c), while Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(d) was applied. Ultimately, the applicant's inability to resolve the majority of his delinquent debts and show improved financial conduct led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found in favor of the applicant on two debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision emphasizes the importance of financial reliability in security clearance evaluations.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateApr 30, 2024

Cite For

Importance of Financial Reliability in Security Clearance Evaluations
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Decisions
Consideration of Mitigating Factors in Financial Cases Under Guideline F

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. The Applicant claimed errors in the Judge's findings and argued for reconsideration of his debt resolution efforts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to give appropriate weight to a settlement offer letter.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant claimed factual errors in the Judge's findings regarding his background.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Board also noted that the Judge's factual errors regarding the Applicant's background were harmless and did not affect the outcome.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 23-02174

)

) 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: April 30, 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 October 5, 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). Applicant elected to receive a decision based on the written record, without a hearing. On February 28, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant has nine delinquent debts totaling about $42,000. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor on two debts, and against him on the remaining debts. In his appeal brief, Applicant points out factual errors in the Judge’s decision, asserts that the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence, and submits new evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in his mid-30sand has been employed by a defense contractor as a systems server engineer since December 2021. He married in 2013 and divorced in 2020. He has one child from this marriage. He graduated from high school in 2008. He has held a security clearance since 2012. Between 2018 and 2022, Applicant accumulated nine delinquent accounts exceeding $42,000. He attributed his debts to immaturity and the availability of excessive credit. He engaged a credit repair service who has helped him with creditor payoffs and removals of debts from his credit report with disputes. Applicant was able to document a debt payoff, a settlement offer, and duplicate SOR allegations, but his submissions contain no documentation showing his satisfaction of the remaining debts. Deletion of accounts from a credit report does not equate to proof that the debts were resolved by means of voluntary, good-faith payments or other agreed settlement arrangement between the parties. The Judge held that without any documented evidence of Applicant’s resolution of the bulk of his debts with payoffs and payment plans, except in two cases, or good cause demonstrated for why debts have not been resolved, no mitigating condition applies. Applicant’s expressed commitments to address his still outstanding accounts with promised payments represent no more than promises to resolve his still outstanding debts and are not viable substitutes for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a responsible way.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant claims that the Judge erred in certain factual findings with regard to his background, argues for reconsideration of certain efforts he has made to resolve debts, and includes additional evidence showing the current status of some debts. In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are erroneous, we will review the decision to determine whether: it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere difference of opinion. ISCR Case No. 97-0435 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 1998). We agree that the Judge made factual errors in describing Applicant’s background, including his age, marital status, and current position held. The Judge’s confusion regarding certain background information, however, constitutes harmless error because it does not likely affect the outcome of the case. ISCR Case No. 19-01431 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 2020). Applicant next asserts the Judge erred by not giving a settlement offer letter appropriate weight, and that more time was needed to show progress in settlement of this and other accounts. He argues that evidence of certain debt resolution efforts was not available when he responded to

the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant offers new evidence in support of his assertions. In part, Applicant is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. Disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. E.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). Applicant has not established that the Judge committed 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. We have often stated that a security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s debts. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. E.g., ISCR Case No. 07-08049 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 22, 2008). The scope of Guideline F encompasses not only an Applicant’s current financial situation, but also extends to his or her financial history. As a general rule, an applicant is not required to be debt-free nor to develop a plan for paying off all debts immediately or simultaneously. E.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 31, 2011). However, an applicant must act responsibly given his or her circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by concomitant conduct even if it may only provide for the payment of debts one at a time. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). The Appeal Board has held that “it is reasonable for a Judge to expect applicants to present documentation about the satisfaction of specific debts.” ISCR Case No. 09-07091 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 11, 2010). Moreover, intentions to resolve financial problems in the future are not a substitute for a track record of debt repayment or other responsible approaches. E.g., ISCR Case No. 11 14570 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 23, 2013). An applicant who waits until his clearance is in jeopardy before resolving debts may be lacking in the judgment and self-discipline expected of those with access to classified information. E.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01211 at 4 (App. Bd. May 30, 2018). Finally, with regard to additional or clarifying evidence presented on appeal, the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal and does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed 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. “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 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