A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 17-00192.a1
DeniedDecided Sep 21, 2018 · Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F concerning financial considerations. The appeal was denied due to the applicant's failure to pay debts and lack of evidence demonstrating debt resolution. The judges affirmed the adverse decision, noting the absence of harmful error allegations in the appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant stopped paying debts and did not provide evidence of debt resolution.
- The appeal raised no allegations of harmful error against the Judge's decision.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“even if debts have been paid, removed, or rendered uncollectable by operations of law, a Judge may still consider the underlying circumstances of an applicant’s financial difficulties in evaluating whether the applicant has demonstrated good judgment and reliability.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2017-02-21
- SOR amended
- 2017-04-27
- Hearing held
- 2018-07-26
- Decision date
- 2018-09-21
Cite for
- Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Importance of Demonstrating Good Judgment and Reliability Despite Debt Resolution
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 3 per allegation rows needs a free account.
3 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-00192.a1 DATE: 09/21/2018 DATE: September 21, 2018 In Re: --------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-00192
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT James Lombardo, Personal Representative The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 21, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On April 27, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) amended the SOR to add additional allegations under Guideline F. Department Counsel requested a hearing. On July 26, 2018, after the hearing, DOHA Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief raises no allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains statements about the status of the debts, including that creditors have failed to validate debts, issued Forms 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt), or refused payment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, even if debts have been paid, removed, or rendered uncollectable by operations of law, a Judge may still consider the underlying circumstances of an applicant’s financial difficulties in evaluating whether the has demonstrated good judgment and reliability. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02246 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2017). In this case, the Judge’s finding that Applicant had simply stopped paying his debts, and his comments about a paucity of evidence of debt resolution, support his overall adverse conclusion. The Board does not review cases de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable.
Order
The Decision is Affirmed. Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board