A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02401
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 29, 2025 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to six delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $25,700 and two federal student loans totaling about $4,400. The judge found favorably on the student loans but adversely on the consumer debts, leading to the denial of the security clearance, which was affirmed on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had six delinquent consumer debts totaling approximately $25,700.
- The applicant admitted to all allegations in the Statement of Reasons.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Mitigating
- F.2 The conditions that resulted in the financial difficulties were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
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
- 2024-01-23
- Answer filed
- Applicant elected a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- Decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2025-01-29 Appeal affirmed the denial.
Cite for
- Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party
- Standard for Granting Security Clearance
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 eligibility based on financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant admitted to the debts and did not provide additional evidence in response to the Government's file. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial.
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. 23-02401
)
) 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: January 29, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 23, 2024, 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 December 3, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged six delinquent consumer debts totaling about $25,700 and two delinquent federal student loans totaling about $4,400. Applicant admitted all allegations in his Answer to the SOR and elected a decision on the written record. Applicant was provided a complete copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 11, 2024, and was notified of his ability to respond to the FORM with any objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the two student loan allegations and adversely on the six consumer debt allegations.
There is no presumption of error below, and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. ISCR Case No. 00-0050, 2001 WL 1044490 at *1 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). On appeal, Applicant provides new evidence in the form of additional information regarding financial counseling and his ongoing efforts to resolve his debts. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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 in ISCR Case No. 23-02401 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