ISCR Case No. 19-03546

___________________________________

) In the matter of: )

)

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 19-03546

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: October 3, 2022

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 February 13, 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 hearing. On August 11, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Benjamin R. Dorsey 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 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $53,000. About $30,000 of the delinquent debt was for student loans, and the remainder consisted of personal loans, credits cards, and a car loan. In answering the SOR, Applicant admitted the

allegations, with explanation. The Judge found for Applicant on eight debts and against Applicant on the remainder, which totaled over $45,000.1 In finding against Applicant, the Judge determined that Applicant’s financial problems resulted both from circumstances beyond his control and within his control. In listing the circumstances that were within Applicant’s control, the Judge included Applicant’s decision to pay some debts belonging to his in-laws and his decision “to address some of his in-law’s debts before his own.” Decision at 7. The Judge also noted that “Applicant admitted that he began to address his finances after he realized his clearance was in jeopardy.” Id. On appeal, Applicant challenges these specific findings as “not true.” Appeal Brief at 1. On appeal, we review a Judge’s challenged findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. Applicant asserts that he “[has] never taken over any debt or payment belonging to my in-laws.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, our review of the record confirms that Applicant admitted that he is paying off a delinquent credit card account that his father-in-law opened to pay medical expenses. Tr. at 64. Moreover, the record confirms that Applicant testified that his security clearance interview alerted him to the gravity of his financial situation and prompted him to retain a debt relief service. Id. at 19. The Judge’s challenged findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we find no merit in Applicant’s contention that the Judge erred in his factual findings. Applicant’s brief also contains financial details and assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant data 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 the national security.” 1 The Judge failed to make a formal finding regarding SOR ¶ 1.j, a student loan in collection for over $17,000. A fair reading of the decision reflects that the Judge intended to find against Applicant on this student loan. The Judge’s error in the formal findings was not raised as an issue on appeal.

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board