CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03692 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03692denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03692

Jan 10, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A military veteran in his mid-forties was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had nine delinquent debts, totaling approximately $53,000. These financial issues were a primary disqualifying condition.

Additionally, the applicant admitted to intentionally falsifying his security clearance application by failing to disclose these debts. This act of omission was a significant factor under Guideline E, raising concerns about his personal conduct and trustworthiness.

The appeal of the denial was unsuccessful. The judge affirmed the original decision, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding his financial obligations and the admitted falsification of his application. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant intentionally falsified his SCA.
AG ¶ 19appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant had multiple delinquent debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision is sustainable.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 13, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 26, 2022decision on the written record
Decision dateJan 10, 2023appeal affirmed

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Action Regarding Debts

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 security clearance based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not properly consider mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowEric C. Price — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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. 20-03692

)

) 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: January 10, 2023

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Brittany D. Forrester, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 13, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On October 26, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric C. Price denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. Applicant is in his mid-forties, divorced, with an adult child. He served in the military from 1998 to 2015. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged nine delinquent debts, totaling about $53,000. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleged that Applicant falsified his security clearance

application by failing to disclose those debts. Applicant attributed his financial issues to his transition from military service, a period of unemployment, divorce costs, and financial support for his parents who had health issues. Applicant admitted that he had falsified his SCA regarding his delinquent debts because he feared that his debts would affect his clearance. Applicant resolved a number of debts not alleged in the SOR. The Judge found for Applicant on three student loan debts and resolved a duplicate allegation. He found adversely to Applicant on the remaining five Guideline F allegations and on the Guideline E falsification allegation. In addressing the mitigating conditions under Guideline F, the Judge concluded that several circumstances that caused the financial issues were beyond Applicant’s control, but that Applicant failed to establish that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. Regarding the five remaining delinquent debts, Applicant “provided no documentary evidence that he has contacted the creditors or otherwise resolved the debts alleged.” Decision at 8. In addressing the mitigating conditions under Guideline E, the Judge highlighted that Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA, denied financial problems when questioned by a background investigator, and admitted them only after he was confronted with adverse credit information. He concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by the falsification. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Rather, he contends the Judge failed to adhere to Executive Order 10865 and the Directive by not considering all of the record evidence and by not properly applying the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. He argues, for example, that the Judge did not give appropriate weight to the circumstances that were beyond his control, to include his divorce, his period of unemployment, and his parents’ medical issues. None of his arguments, however, are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01495 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 30, 2020). Additionally, Applicant relies on hearing-level decisions in other cases to argue the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Generally, how particular fact scenarios were adjudicated in other cases is not a relevant consideration in the Appeal Board’s review of a case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-03344 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Dec. 21, 2020). None of the hearing-level decisions that Applicant cites are sufficient to show the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable.

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