CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00058 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00058denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00058

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

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $23,300 in delinquent debt across 12 accounts. This financial situation raised security concerns, specifically under Disqualifying Condition F.1.

The applicant admitted to all but two of the debts but failed to provide any supporting documentation to mitigate these concerns. Consequently, the initial denial was upheld.

Upon appeal, the applicant did not present new evidence to address the outstanding financial issues. Furthermore, the applicant's assertion of harmful error was unsubstantiated. As a result, the appeal was denied, and the security clearance denial was finalized.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMay 18, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant did not submit a response to the SOR.
Hearing held—Decision was made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 3, 2022Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Supporting Documentation in Response to SOR
Limitations on Presenting New Evidence During the Appeal Process

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 claimed that the evidence he presented was not thoroughly reviewed. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding it sustainable on the record and noting the applicant's failure to submit evidence prior to the appeal.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant asserted that the evidence he presented was not thoroughly reviewed.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge examined the relevant evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Board also noted that the applicant failed to submit evidence until after the decision was made, which could not be considered on appeal.

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. 20-00058

)

) 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 Date: February 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 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 July 16, 2021, Applicant receipted for his copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), but subsequently failed to submit any matters in response. On October 26, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi 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 approximately $23,300 in delinquent debt across 12 accounts. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but two debts, each for $499. He submitted no supporting documentation with his response to the SOR. The Judge found for

Applicant on one of the two debts, determining it was either a duplicate or paid off, and against Applicant on the remaining 11 debts. On appeal, Applicant makes only one assertion of harmful error—that “the evidence (he) presented wasn’t gone over thoroughly . . . .” Appeal Brief at 1. The record confirms, however, that Applicant failed to submit any evidence until he filed his Notice of Appeal, at which time he submitted proof of payments on alleged accounts. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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: 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