A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00181
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 23, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,000, of which he admitted to four debts totaling about $11,000. The Administrative Judge found against the applicant on all allegations, affirming that he failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his claims and did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to provide documentation corroborating various claims.
- The applicant's appeal did not specify any harmful error by the Judge.
- The applicant's statements about future plans to address debts were not as probative as demonstrated actions.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-10-20
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-11-18
- Decision date
- 2023-01-23 Appeal 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
The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that the information reviewed was not up to date and presented new documents not considered by the Administrative Judge. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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