CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02188 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02188denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-02188

Aug 19, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing themselves, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. These included eight delinquent debts and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no due process violations in the original decision. The board concluded that the judge had adequately considered all presented evidence regarding the applicant's financial history.

Ultimately, the presence of multiple delinquent debts and a bankruptcy filing led to the denial of the security clearance, with the appeal board upholding the initial determination.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateAug 19, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Consideration of Due Process in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued he was not given adequate time to submit evidence before the decision was made. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge had considered all relevant evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted he was not given sufficient time and notification to submit final evidence to prove trustworthiness prior to the revocation of clearance.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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. 23-02188

)

) 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: August 19, 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 December 1, 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 July 18, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged eight delinquent consumer debts and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanations and elected a decision based on the written record. In February 2024, Department Counsel mailed a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) to Applicant and provided him an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. The FORM also included an amendment to the SOR, adding two allegations under Guideline F. Applicant submitted a timely response to the FORM, consisting of

Applicant’s Exhibits A through F. Applicant did not object to the amendment to the SOR, but he did not admit or deny the two new allegations. The Judge found for Applicant on the bankruptcy allegation and against him on all other allegations. On appeal, Applicant asserts that he “was not given the prerequisite time and notification to submit final evidence to prove trustworthiness prior to the revocation of clearance.” Appeal Brief at 1. He also notes that he submitted payment plans on the alleged debts. The record confirms that Applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond to the FORM, that he was advised that the FORM and his response would then be submitted to the Judge for decision, and that Applicant took advantage of the opportunity and submitted additional information and documents. The Judge’s decision clearly reflects that he considered all the documents submitted, as he explicitly referenced Applicant’s exhibits in his findings of fact. Applicant does not explain how he was denied the due process afforded by the Directive, and our review reveals no basis for concern. The record contains no request, for example, for an extension of time to submit materials. An applicant must make a sufficient proffer as to whether there is a sufficient basis for the Board to remand the case or take other corrective action. Applicant’s bare assertion that he needed more time or an additional opportunity to submit evidence is insufficient to establish that he was in any way denied the due process afforded by the Directive. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision 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 in ISCR Case No. 23-02188 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