CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03097 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03097denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03097

May 4, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $54,300. The applicant admitted to most of these debts but failed to provide sufficient documentation to support claims that they had been resolved.

While Disqualifying Condition F.3 was raised, Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied. However, the appeal board ultimately upheld the denial. The board noted that it does not review cases de novo and therefore could not consider new evidence presented on appeal.

The denial was affirmed because the applicant did not demonstrate that the judge committed any harmful error in the initial decision. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, and the security clearance was not granted.

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 applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of resolution.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's claims of resolution were not substantiated with documentation.

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 1, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 13, 2023Decision issued by Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale.
Decision dateMay 4, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
The Appeal Board's Prohibition on Considering New Evidence
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance as 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations, specifically 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $54,300. The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that the debts were old and charged off. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the denial of his clearance was based on old debts that have been charged off his credit report.

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.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence review

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Allison Marie

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. 20-03097

)

) 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 4, 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 December 1, 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On March 13, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 14 delinquent debts that totaled approximately $54,300. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but two minor debts. For most debts, Applicant noted “Corrected” or “Progress” without explanation. In an earlier response to interrogatories, Applicant stated that several of the debts were paid or under payment plans, but submitted no supporting documentation. At least five of the alleged debts are no longer reflected on the most recent credit report. In summary, the Judge concluded, “Applicant argues that he has resolved [three alleged debts] by tax withholding. He also argues he is doing this during a move and an adoption. He

provides no further explanation and provides no substantiating documentation showing any action he had taken to resolve or address his accounts.” Decision at 4. On appeal, Applicant provides additional information about his security clearance history and requests reconsideration of the decision or a new investigation. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29.1 Applicant also argues that the denial of his clearance was “not valid,” as it was based upon “old debts that have been charged off of [his] credit report.” Appeal Brief at 1. It is well established, however, that an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts demonstrate a continuing course of conduct and can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2017). Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted any relief on appeal. 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 the national security.”

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 1 Applicant also states that letters of recommendation are attached, but they were not included with his appeal brief. Regardless, the Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.