CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03792 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03792denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03792

Dec 20, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant, representing herself, faced concerns primarily related to a delinquent mortgage and other outstanding debts.

The judge identified disqualifying condition F.3, noting the applicant's failure to provide sufficient explanation and corroborating documentation for her financial issues. Specifically, the applicant did not adequately account for the proceeds from a mortgage sale, which was a significant factor in the decision. While mitigating condition F.2 was considered, it was not enough to overcome the concerns.

Ultimately, the judge found against the applicant regarding the delinquent mortgage account. The appeal affirmed the initial denial, as the applicant did not present adequate evidence to overturn the original decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found in favor of the applicant on two of the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 21, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 4, 2021
Decision dateDec 20, 2021Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Overturn a Denial Based on Financial Concerns
Importance of Corroborating Documentation in Financial Cases
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Considerations

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 in weighing the evidence regarding her mortgage debt. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — 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 claimed the Judge erred in weighing the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's decision and concluded that the evidence supported the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Moira D. Modzelewski
James F. Duffy

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

SYNOPSIS

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------ )

ISCR Case No. 19-03792

)

) 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 KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: In his decision, the Judge noted the mortgaged property was ultimately sold at an auction for $95,600, and Applicant claimed the proceeds of the sale were to be applied toward the outstanding mortgage balance. She failed, however, to provide corroborating documentation. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration, including a document concerning the mortgage, which appears to reference activity that post-dates the close of the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASENO: 19-03792.a1 DATE: 12/20/2021 Date: December 20, 2021

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 21, 2020, 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). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 4, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had a delinquent mortgage account of about $62,800, a charged-off debt of about $845, and a state tax levy of about $6,100. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the three debts with explanations. The Judge found against Applicant on the mortgage account and for her on the other two debts. In his decision, the Judge noted the mortgaged property was ultimately sold at an auction for $95,600, and Applicant claimed the proceeds of the sale were to be applied toward the outstanding mortgage balance. She failed, however, to provide corroborating documentation. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration, including a document concerning the mortgage, which appears to reference activity that post-dates the close of the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s brief also presents arguments regarding the alleged tax levy. Her arguments regarding the tax levy need not be addressed because the Judge found in favor of her on that allegation. None of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to establish the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. She failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board