CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02238 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02238

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date7/25/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02238) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had two delinquent credit card debts totaling nearly $20,000 and had failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. The applicant admitted to the allegations regarding the debts but provided explanations for his financial situation, while he successfully mitigated the tax-related concerns.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had not taken sufficient action to resolve the two delinquent debts, which had been charged off and placed for collection. Although the applicant claimed to have paid the debts for ten years prior to defaulting, he did not provide evidence of efforts to address the debts after 2016. The judge noted that the applicant's statements indicated a lack of intent to resolve the debts, and there was no evidence of financial counseling or proactive measures taken to rectify the situation. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant regarding the delinquent debts, affirming that he had not acted responsibly in managing his financial obligations.
On appeal, the applicant argued that he was willing to attend a hearing and that the judge failed to consider all evidence in mitigation. However, the appeal board concluded that the applicant had knowingly waived his right to a hearing by opting for a decision based on the written record. The board found no harmful error in the judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance, emphasizing that the applicant's financial history and current situation did not demonstrate the necessary reliability and trustworthiness for national security eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02238

Jul 25, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant faced two significant issues: delinquent credit card debts totaling nearly $20,000 and a failure to file tax returns for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

While the applicant admitted to these allegations and sought to present mitigating factors, the Administrative Judge determined that the delinquent credit card debts were disqualifying. However, the judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the unfiled tax returns.

The denial was ultimately affirmed on appeal, with the Board concluding that the applicant had knowingly waived his right to a hearing. The decision highlighted the unresolved financial debts as the primary basis for the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's arguments for mitigation were not sufficient to overcome the disqualifying debts.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateJul 25, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Waiver of Hearing Rights in Security Clearance Appeals

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 that the Judge erred by not holding a hearing and not considering all mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the Judge erred by not convening a hearing and failed to consider all evidence in mitigation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant knowingly waived his right to a hearing and received a reasonable opportunity to respond to the FORM. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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.