CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-01725 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-01725denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-01725

May 12, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from admitted delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,000 and allegations of falsification on his security clearance application.

The applicant admitted to nine of eleven alleged delinquent debts but failed to provide documentation of payment or payment arrangements for any of them. His explanation for not disclosing these debts was deemed unconvincing, as multiple delinquent accounts were evident on his credit reports. Furthermore, the applicant did not submit a response to the Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material.

The Administrative Judge found insufficient evidence of debt resolution and a lack of credibility in the applicant's claims. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedAug 6, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 31, 2022
Decision dateMay 12, 2022Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Lack of Credibility in Applicant's Claims Under Guideline E
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with National Security

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 and personal conduct. The applicant contended that the Judge erred in analyzing the allegations of falsification and delinquent debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis or conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline EGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his analysis of the falsification and debt allegations.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision regarding the applicant's financial issues and falsification allegations. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's findings were unsupported by substantial evidence or that the decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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. 21-01725

)

) 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: May 12, 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 August 6, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 31, 2022, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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 erred in his analysis of the falsification and debt allegations. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 11 delinquent debts totaling about $27,000 and that he falsified a security clearance application (SCA) in 2020 by failing to disclose his delinquent

debts. In responding to the SOR, he admitted nine of the alleged debts and denied the remaining debts and the falsification allegation. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. Applicant’s SOR response contained no documentation showing he paid or is making payments toward any of the alleged debts. As for the falsification allegation, his SOR response merely stated that he was unaware of the delinquent debts and was working with the creditors to resolve them. Applicant did not submit a response to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant failed to provide any documentation to support his claims regarding his efforts to resolve the debts. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge’s decision was made based upon insufficient information, presents documents and assertions regarding his resolution of various debts, and provides an explanation for his failure to disclose the debts on his SCA. These documents and assertions constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29 stating, “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.” In the decision, the Judge noted that there was no indication that Applicant received financial counseling, that his financial problems are under control, and that he has initiated a good faith effort to pay or resolve the delinquent debts. Regarding the falsification, the Judge noted Applicant failed to disclose any of the 11 delinquent debts that were reflected on his 2019 and 2020 credit reports on his SCA and provided no convincing explanation why so many delinquent accounts totaling about $27,000 were simply overlooked. None of Applicant’s arguments in his appeal brief are sufficient to establish the Judge committed any harmful error in rendering his decision. 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: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board