CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02203 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02203denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-02203

Jul 18, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies. The applicant appealed the denial, asserting a factual error regarding the timeline of these delinquencies.

However, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial. They concluded that even if a factual error existed concerning the timeline, it was harmless and did not alter the outcome of the case.

Therefore, the security clearance was denied based on the applicant's financial history, which raised disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 20. The Appeal Board determined that the core financial concerns remained valid, irrespective of the alleged timeline discrepancy.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 18, 2024

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Harmless Error Doctrine in Appeal Decisions
Self-representation in Security Clearance Cases

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 was filed by the Applicant after the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals denied his security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge made a factual error regarding the start of his financial delinquencies. The Board found that any potential error was harmless and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant claimed the Judge made a factual error regarding when his delinquencies began.

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's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The alleged error regarding the timing of the Applicant's financial delinquencies was deemed harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo 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. 23-02203

)

) 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: July 18, 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 November 9, 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 May 28, 2024, after conducting a hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleges 13 financial concerns, and the Judge found against Applicant as to all but two of the allegations. On appeal, Applicant notes that the Judge found that Applicant “was not able to make payments from 2019 to 2020.” He further states that he “was still making all payment until 2020 pandemic covid started.” While not specifically articulated, this implies that the Judge made a factual error regarding when Applicant’s delinquencies began. Although Applicant does not cite to a specific portion of the Decision, it appears he is referring to the following sentence: “The debts alleged in the SOR are mostly credit-card accounts

that he has been unable to pay since about 2019 or 2020.” Decision at 3. It is noteworthy that contrary to Applicant’s paraphrasing, the Judge concluded that Applicants delinquencies began “about 2019 or 2020.” (emphasis added). Applicant himself testified that before 2020, “I pretty much had a clean record with all my finances.” Transcript at 20. Thus, there is some ambiguity as to when Applicant’s financial problems began. Regardless, we do not evaluate a Judge's decision based on isolated words or sentences but, rather, on the decision viewed as a whole. ISCR Case No. 20-00204 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 2, 2022). Considering the totality of the facts of this case, it is of no significant consequence whether the delinquencies began in 2019 or 2020. Therefore, to the extent there may be error, it is harmless as it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. E.g., ISCR Case No. 95-0495 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 22, 1996). Applicant makes no other claims that can be interpreted as an assertion of error. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. We have considered the entirety of Applicant’s arguments. The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse 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. 23-02203 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