CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02947 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 20-02947

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/10/2022
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 20-02947) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Jennifer I. Goldstein, James F. Duffy
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) indicated that the applicant had 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $26,600. The applicant admitted to most of the debts but denied two specific debts.
During the proceedings, the administrative judge found that the applicant had only recently begun to address the debts, realizing the potential impact on his security clearance and employment. The judge noted that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of good faith efforts to resolve the debts, including a lack of documentation showing payments or a history of addressing the delinquent accounts. The applicant later appealed the decision, arguing that he had resolved the debts before the hearing but could not provide documentation at that time.
The appeal board affirmed the administrative judge's decision, stating that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error that would warrant reopening the case. The board emphasized that the applicant had ample opportunity to present evidence during the proceedings and that his request to submit new evidence post-hearing did not establish any error on the part of the judge. The board concluded that the judge's decision was well-reasoned and consistent with national security considerations.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-02947

Jan 10, 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 11 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $26,600, which were identified as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19.

While the applicant acknowledged some of these debts, he failed to provide adequate evidence of mitigation for the outstanding financial obligations. This lack of sufficient mitigating information was a primary factor in the denial.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the initial decision-making process. The applicant's inability to demonstrate resolution or substantial mitigation of the $26,600 in delinquent debts led to the final denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedNov 24, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 13, 2021Applicant was granted a continuance to submit additional documents.
Decision dateJan 10, 2022Appeal affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation in Financial Cases
Burden of Proof Lies with the Applicant to Present Evidence Before the Record Closes

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that he should be allowed to present additional evidence regarding his debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in concluding he failed to mitigate the alleged security concerns.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in her application of the whole-person concept.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error that affected his right to present evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy
Moira D. Modzelewski
Jennifer I. Goldstein

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.