A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-00634
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 25, 2023 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F, admitting to debts totaling approximately $16,430, including tax, medical, and school debts. The administrative judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the school debt but against him on the other allegations, concluding that doubts remained about his security clearance eligibility. The appeal was affirmed, with the judge's decision deemed sustainable on the record.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant admitted to significant debts, including tax and medical debts.
- The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims.
- Doubts remained about the applicant's security clearance eligibility despite his explanations.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recentrejected
- AG ¶ 20(c) The applicant has made good faith efforts to repay debtsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-05-21
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-09-27
- Decision date
- 2023-01-25 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims
- The Standard for Granting Security Clearances Related to 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant contested the Judge's findings regarding his financial difficulties and travel history. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's assessment of the evidence.
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. 21-00634
)
) 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 25, 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 May 21, 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 September 27, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Candace Le’i Garcia 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 owed the Federal Government about $15,000 for six tax years between 2011 and 2018; that he had a judgment entered against him in 2019 for a medical debt of about $1,100; and that he had a delinquent school debt of about $330. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the alleged debts with explanations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the school debt and against him on the other allegations. In the decision, the Judge indicated that Applicant took tourist trips outside the United States in 2014, 2017, and 2018.
Additionally, the Judge noted Applicant failed to provide documentation corroborating some of his claims and concluded that doubts remained about his security clearance eligibility. On appeal, Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s finding about his trips, asserts that circumstances were overlooked in his clearance determination, and provides explanations regarding his financial difficulties. None of his arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence or 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 also mentions that he needs a security clearance to continue in his job. On this last point, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). 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