CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01176 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01176denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01176

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

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to 18 delinquent debts totaling over $45,000. Representing himself, the applicant admitted to 13 of these debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation for any of them.

The denial was based on the applicant's extensive financial delinquencies and the lack of documentation to support claims that debts were resolved. The applicant's promise to pay debts in the future was not considered adequate to demonstrate the necessary financial responsibility.

Despite the potential applicability of mitigating conditions, the applicant did not present compelling evidence to overcome the disqualifying conditions. Consequently, the initial denial was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were ongoing and not resolved.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial issues were not shown to be beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemNo evidence of financial counseling was presented.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Debt RepaymentThe applicant failed to demonstrate a good track record of repayment.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedThe Person Has a Reasonable Plan to Resolve the DebtThe applicant's plan to resolve debts was not deemed reasonable or actionable.

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 30, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 18, 2022
Decision dateJun 3, 2022Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Mitigation Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues
Importance of National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions

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 Judge's decision was arbitrary and overlooked evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

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 because he overlooked evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. The Applicant failed to establish any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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. 21-01176

)

) 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: June 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 June 30, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 18, 2022, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because he overlooked evidence. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

The SOR alleged that Applicant had 18 delinquent debts totaling over $45,000. In responding to the SOR, he admitted 13 of the alleged debts and denied the others. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on one allegation and against him on the others. Student loans constitute the bulk of Applicant’s alleged indebtedness. The school Applicant attended has closed, and students are suing the school to recoup their tuition. Applicant submitted the first of five pages of a student loan discharge application but acknowledged in that document that he was not eligible for a discharge because he completed his educational program before the school closed. He indicated a loan advisor told him to submit the application so that he might be eligible for recoupment if the lawsuit is successful, and he further indicated he would pay the loans if the lawsuit was unsuccessful. The Judge considered this promise to pay in future as falling short of meaningful evidence of mitigation. In the decision, the Judge also noted that Applicant claimed various debts were resolved, but he failed to present documentation showing the debts were paid or otherwise were in the process of being resolved. None of the Applicant’s arguments in his appeal brief are enough to rebut the presumption 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. 19-01939 at 4 (App. Bd. May 11, 2022). Applicant failed to establish 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 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