Loading case…

ISCR 21-00634: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2023) · CASE

ISCR Case 21-00634denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00634

Jan 25, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. He admitted to approximately $16,430 in debts, encompassing tax, medical, and school obligations.

While the administrative judge found in the applicant's favor regarding the school debt, the judge ruled against him on other allegations. The primary reasons for denial included the applicant's admitted significant tax and medical debts, and his failure to provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claims.

Despite the applicant's explanations, doubts persisted regarding his security clearance eligibility. The appeal affirmed the administrative judge's decision, concluding it was sustainable based on the record. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 19 was raised, while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were applied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not isolated incidents.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of good faith efforts to resolve his debts.

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 issuedMay 21, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 27, 2022
Decision dateJan 25, 2023Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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 ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge overlooked circumstances regarding his financial difficulties.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's findings about his trips were erroneous.
No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed no harmful error was committed.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The Board concluded that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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. 21-00634

)

) 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

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 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