A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-00058
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 3, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to approximately $23,300 in delinquent debt across 12 accounts. The applicant admitted to all but two debts and provided no supporting documentation. The appeal was denied as the applicant failed to substantiate claims of harmful error and did not present new evidence.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had approximately $23,300 in delinquent debt across 12 accounts, which raised security concerns under Guideline F.
- The applicant admitted to all but two debts and provided no supporting documentation to mitigate the concerns.
- The appeal did not present new evidence, and the assertion of harmful error was unsubstantiated.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2020-05-18
- Answer filed
- Applicant did not submit a response to the SOR.
- Hearing held
- Decision was made on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2022-02-03 Decision 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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