CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00804 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-00804denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-00804

Oct 12, 2023· Hon. Allison Marie· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 27 delinquent debts totaling approximately $45,000. The judge identified disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3, acknowledging the applicant admitted to most allegations regarding these debts.

While the judge found in the applicant's favor on five debts totaling about $2,000, the majority of the financial obligations remained unresolved. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns stemming from her financial problems.

The appeal affirmed the original decision, finding no harmful errors in the judge's ruling. Therefore, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Problems Were Temporary and Have Been ResolvedThe judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
F.2rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Efforts to Pay Off DebtsThe judge determined that the applicant's efforts did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 8, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 7, 2023
Decision dateOct 12, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Concerns Despite Some Debts Being Resolved
Affirmation of a Judge's Decision When No Harmful Errors Are Found in the Record.

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. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in assessing the evidence and the timing of submitted documents. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error that would affect the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider or properly analyze the evidence.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in stating she was late in emailing her post-hearing exhibits.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

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

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
Allision Marie

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. 22-00804

)

) 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: October 12, 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 June 8, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On August 7, 2023, after the record closed, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 27 delinquent debts totaling about $45,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but one of the allegations. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on five of the alleged debts totaling about $2,000 and against her on the other allegations, concluding that she failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her alleged financial problems.

On appeal, Applicant makes assertions and provides documents that were not submitted to the Judge for consideration. Some of those documents post-date the Judge’s decision. The Appeal Board is prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge erred in stating she was late in emailing her post-hearing exhibits on July 26, 2023, when she timely submitted them six days earlier. The Judge noted that he marked the post-hearing exhibits and entered them into the record. The Judge’s error regarding the timeliness of the post-hearing submission was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02581 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2020). The remainder of Applicant’s brief is an explanation of the reasons for her financial problems and the steps she has taken to resolve them. To the extent she is claiming the Judge failed to consider or properly analyze the evidence, none of her arguments are sufficient to rebut the presumption 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 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 the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also AG ¶ 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 Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allision Marie Allision Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board