A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 24-00903
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 14, 2025 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial due to financial issues under Guideline F and personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. He admitted to two delinquent debts totaling approximately $50,000 and failed to disclose these debts on his security clearance application. The appeal was denied, affirming the initial decision based on insufficient evidence of debt repayment and the timing of his resolution efforts.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide evidence of actual payments made on his delinquent debts.
- The timing of the applicant's debt resolution efforts was deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns raised.
- The applicant did not assert any specific claims of error on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
- E2 Deliberate omission of information from a security clearance applicationraised
Key rule quoted
“There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2024-07-15
- Answer filed
- 2024-12-23
- Hearing held
- Applicant requested decision based on written record.
- Decision date
- 2025-02-14 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Failure to Disclose Debts on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
- Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment Under Guideline F
- Burden of Proof on the Appealing Party Regarding Claims of Error
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 based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The Applicant did not assert any specific harmful errors on appeal and provided new evidence that could not be considered. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.
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. 24-00903
)
) 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: February 14, 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 July 15, 2024, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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 23, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Benjamin R. Dorsey denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged two delinquent debts totaling approximately $50,000, and further alleged under Guideline E that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his debts on his security clearance application (SCA). Applicant disclosed no financial problems on his 2021 SCA, and his debts were not identified until the information was developed pursuant to the Continuous Evaluation Program. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with
explanation for how the debts were incurred and became delinquent, and he requested that his case be decided based on the written record. He also provided documentation reflecting that he had – several days earlier – scheduled recurring payments on both debts beginning August 2024. He provided no evidence, however, of payments actually made on either debt. Applicant was provided a complete copy of the Government’s FORM on October 16, 2024, and was notified of his ability to respond with objections or additional information for the Judge to consider. Applicant did not respond to the FORM and, based largely on the timing of Applicant’s debt resolution efforts and lack of evidence demonstrating debt repayment, the Judge found against him on all allegations. There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of raising claims of error with specificity. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. On appeal, Applicant makes no assertion of error, but rather reiterates his explanation for the debts and his resolution efforts, and requests reconsideration of the decision. Applicant also provides new evidence in the form of updates and documentation regarding payments made towards the debts and their current status. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00903 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