CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00181 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00181denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00181

Jan 23, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,000. While the applicant admitted to four of these debts, amounting to about $11,000, the Administrative Judge found against him on all allegations.

The Judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims regarding the debts. Furthermore, the applicant's appeal did not specify any harmful error in the Judge's initial decision. The Judge also noted that the applicant's statements about future plans to address the debts were not as probative as demonstrated actions.

Ultimately, the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation and to demonstrate any error in the Judge's findings led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedOct 20, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 18, 2022
Decision dateJan 23, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Provide Corroborating Documentation Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Reform Regarding Financial Issues
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Concerns

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 was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the information reviewed was not up to date and claimed errors in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPhilip J. Katauskas — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that not all information reviewed in this case was up to date or presented as previously stated.

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.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

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. 21-00181

)

) 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 23, 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 October 20, 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 DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 18, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had seven delinquent debts totaling about $28,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted four of those debts totaling about $11,000. The Judge found against Applicant on each allegation. In the findings of fact and analysis, the Judge noted Applicant failed to provide documentation corroborating various claims. On appeal, Applicant contends that “[n]ot all information reviewed in this case was up to date or presented as I had stated previously.” Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. Some of those documents postdate the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering or

receiving new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Other than generally stating the decision was in error, Applicant does not specify any error on the part of the Judge. To the extent that Applicant is disagreeing with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, he failed to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 21-01169 at 5 (App. Bd. May 13, 2022). Applicant further asserts that he has a plan to address the unresolved debts; however, statements about proposed future conduct to eliminate his debts are not as probative as demonstrated actions to resolve the problem. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0447 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2000) (“A promise to take remedial steps in the future is not evidence of reform or rehabilitation.”).” Applicant failed to establish that 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 the national security.”

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