Skip to content
CASE
← Back to results

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

ISCR Case No. 20-00319.a1

Appeal Board

Decided Jun 2, 2021 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Case headnote

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, faced denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations, specifically 13 delinquent debts totaling over $36,000. Despite acknowledging efforts to resolve some debts, the appeal board found no errors in the judge's decision, affirming that the applicant's financial situation posed a risk to national security.

Why the applicant was denied

  • The applicant admitted to having 13 delinquent debts totaling over $36,000.
  • The applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation for his claims of resolving debts.
  • The appeal board found no harmful errors in the judge's decision.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

  • F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised

Mitigating

  • F.2 The conditions that led to the financial problems were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
  • F.3 The person has made good faith efforts to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsrejected

Key rule quoted

“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)

Procedural posture

SOR issued
2020-05-18
Answer filed
Hearing held
2021-03-24 Decision on the written record.
Decision date
2021-06-02 Appeal decision.

Cite for

  • Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
  • Insufficient Corroboration of Efforts to Resolve Debts
  • Standard for National Security Eligibility Regarding Financial Issues

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not challenge the Judge's findings but discussed personal circumstances and efforts to resolve debts. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's decision.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Synopsis

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Rather, he discusses conditions that impacted his financial situation and his efforts to resolve the debts, highlights his military service and family issues, and notes that he has been working at a company for over two years and has had no problems. None of his arguments are sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00319.a1 DATE: 06/02/2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) --------------------­ ) ISCR Case No. 20-00319 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 May 18, 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 March 24, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 13 delinquent debts totaling over $36,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted ten of the debt allegations. The Judge concluded that Applicant had resolved a child support arrearage and a collection account, and she found in favor of him on those debts. In her analysis, the Judge noted that Applicant stated he was making payments to resolve other debts but failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Rather, he discusses conditions that impacted his financial situation and his efforts to resolve the debts, highlights his military service and family issues, and notes that he has been working at a company for over two years and has had no problems. None of his arguments are sufficient to show the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). Applicant has 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 the interests of the 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 the national security.”

Order

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board