CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03102 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03102denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03102

Dec 22, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 15 delinquent debts, including medical accounts, consumer debts, and student loans. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant regarding one consumer debt and her student loans, while ruling in her favor on other allegations.

Disqualifying condition F.3 was raised, and mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered. However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of her offers to resolve her financial problems prior to receiving the Statement of Reasons.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied because the appeal board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision concerning the applicant's financial situation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe Judge found against the applicant on significant debts, indicating that the applicant's financial difficulties were not sufficiently mitigated.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of good faith efforts prior to the SOR.

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 issuedDec 4, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 8, 2022After the record closed.
Decision dateDec 22, 2022Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation Efforts
Affirmation of a Decision Based on the Absence of Harmful Error in the Judge's Findings.

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately consider her financial situation and provided new evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJuan J. Rivera — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged that the Judge did not properly consider her financial situation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision was sustainable on the record and consistent with national security standards.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
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. 20-03102

)

) 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: December 22, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 4, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 8, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera 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, which include seven medical account totaling about $1,200, two consumer debts totaling about $1,400, and six student loans totaling over $32,000. The Judge found against Applicant on one consumer debt allegation and the student loan allegations and in favor of her on the other allegations. Applicant admitted the student loans in responding to the SOR. In the decision, the Judge found that Applicant’s student loans were assigned for collection in 2014 and 2015, and that she entered into a repayment agreement to begin rehabilitating them in mid-2021. The Judge concluded, “Applicant failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence of her offers to resolve her financial problems before receipt of the SOR.” Decision at 7.

On appeal, Applicant states that she provided receipts and other documents showing her medical debts have been settled. As noted above, the Judge found in favor of the medical debts. There is no reason to conclude the Judge did not consider the documents that Applicant submitted concerning the medical debts. Applicant notes that, in the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated, “If the Applicant continues on her present financial course, a security clearance could be in her future, but that time is not yet here.” Appeal Brief at 1, quoting from Decision at 7. Applicant next argues, “The Judges (sic) position was based on data from December 2020. It is now December of 2022 and I repaid all of my medical debts and I am in good standing with my student loans . . . I have taken the steps necessary to become financially stable and I continue to maintain my finances responsibly”. Id. at 1. In support of this and other arguments, Applicant presents documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Regarding the student loans, Applicant highlights her efforts to resolve those debts and her interaction with the company handling those loans. Her arguments regarding those loans amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. None of Applicant’s arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 13, 2022). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the 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 national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Signed: Moira Modzelewski James F. Duffy Jennifer I. Goldstein Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Member, Appeal Board Member, Appeal Board