CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03546 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03546denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03546

Oct 3, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $53,000, with over $45,000 found against him.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial problems stemmed from a mix of circumstances beyond his control and those within his control, specifically noting his prioritization of his in-laws' debts over his own. The applicant's claims of financial mismanagement were not adequately substantiated, and he only began to address his financial situation after realizing his security clearance was at risk.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the concerns raised under Disqualifying Condition F.3.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy 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 issuedFeb 13, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 11, 2022after the record closed
Decision dateOct 3, 2022Appeal decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Substantial Evidence Standard in Appeals
Prioritization of Debts and Its Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant challenged the Administrative Judge's findings regarding his financial decisions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBenjamin R. Dorsey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's findings regarding his financial decisions as inaccurate.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Applicant did not establish any harmful error that would warrant a reversal of the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
James E. Moody
Moira Modzelewski

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

APPEARANCES

___________________________________

) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 19-03546

)

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

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 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.

ORDER

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