CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00843 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00843denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00843

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

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. These issues included multiple bankruptcies and significant tax delinquencies.

The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's lengthy history of financial problems. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide documentation substantiating an installment agreement and payments made towards it. This lack of evidence contributed to the board's finding that the applicant did not establish he acted responsibly in addressing his financial problems.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the decision emphasizing ongoing financial concerns and insufficient demonstration of responsible financial management.

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 issuedJun 25, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldOct 26, 2022After the record closed.
Decision dateDec 22, 2022Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Management
Affirmation of Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues

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 argued that the administrative judge made an error regarding the date of his security clearance application and claimed that the judge's decision was harmful. 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 belowCaroline E. Heintzelman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant claimed the Judge erred in stating the date of his security clearance application.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the minor oversight regarding the SCA’s date was harmless and did not affect the outcome. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence 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. 21-00843

)

) 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 James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 25, 2021, 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 hearing. On October 26, 2022, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman 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 received Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges in 2005 and 2015; that he owed over $17,000 in delinquent Federal taxes for 2013, 2014 and 2016; that he owed about $7,800 in delinquent local state taxes; and that he had five other delinquent debts totaling about $2,600. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted the bankruptcy allegations, Federal tax allegations, and two of the non-tax debt allegations. He denied the local state tax debt and three of the non-tax debts. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the local state tax debt and three of the non-tax debts totaling about $1,000 and found against him on the remaining allegations.

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

In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant’s Federal tax delinquencies are ongoing and he failed to provide documentation substantiating an installment agreement and payments towards it. The Judge concluded that Applicant has a lengthy history of financial issues and that he failed to establish he acted responsibly in addressing his financial problems. In his appeal brief, Applicant claims the Judge erred in the History of the Case by stating he submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 16, 2018. Applicant’s assertion has merit because the only SCA in the record is dated October 15, 2020. His argument that this error is a basis for concluding the Judge reviewed the SCA improperly is not persuasive. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the minor oversight regarding the SCA’s date is harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Applicant’s brief contains an IRS document that post-dates the Judge’s decision. This document constitutes new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also argues that he needs a security clearance to further his career. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). 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.