CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00654 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00654denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00654

Jan 25, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $19,000 in delinquent consumer debts. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision.

The judge's findings, which were supported by evidence, identified disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3 related to financial irresponsibility. While mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered, they were ultimately insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was upheld because the applicant failed to challenge the judge's specific factual findings and did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims of bias against the judge. The appeal board concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's handling of the case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.3appliedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Temporary and Have Been Resolved
F.2appliedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 21, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 5, 2022after the record closed
Decision dateJan 25, 2023appeal decision

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Standards for Demonstrating Bias in Administrative Hearings
Criteria for Evaluating Harmful Error in Security 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 appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge did not consider all evidence and alleged bias. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's handling of the case.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not identify any harmful error in the Judge's handling of his case.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant alleged bias on the part of the Judge without providing specific instances.

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 no harmful error in the Judge's decision and concluded that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the applicant did not demonstrate bias or any other error that would affect the outcome.

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
Moira Modzelewski
Gregg A. Cervi

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. 20-00654

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________)

Date: January 25, 2023

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 21, 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 hearing. On December 5, 2022, after the record closed, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 20 financial concerns⸺8 allegations regarding federal and state taxes and 12 allegations of delinquent consumer debt. The Judge found for Applicant on 14 allegations, including all tax allegations, and against him on six delinquent consumer debts that totaled about $19,000. On appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, he highlights his payments to the IRS and department counsel’s arguments regarding those payments. We note that all tax allegations were all resolved in Applicant’s favor. Additionally, Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all the receipts that he submitted, to include the

receipts submitted after the hearing. However, the Judge cited to Applicant’s post-hearing submissions in resolving numerous allegations in his favor.1 Applicant also asserts that the Judge was upset with him because the originally-scheduled hearing had to be postponed due to technical issues. To the extent that Applicant is alleging bias, we are not convinced. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. Applicant has failed to cite any specific instances that would cause a reasonable person to doubt the Judge’s fairness or impartiality, and our review of the record and decision reveals none. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-02787 at 3–4 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2022). In conclusion, Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s handling of his case or in his decision. 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.” 1 Our review reveals that the Judge erred in her findings of fact regarding SOR ¶ 1.h⸺a consumer debt of $459. She concluded that it was unresolved in her findings of fact, but entered a formal finding for Applicant on the allegation. The favorable formal finding is supported by Applicant’s evidence. Any error was harmless, as the resolution of this relatively minor debt did not likely have an impact on the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020).

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board