CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01667 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01667unknown

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-01667

May 16, 2023· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves an applicant who was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant, representing himself, faced allegations concerning eight delinquent student loans totaling approximately $33,000, and three other delinquent debts amounting to about $46,000, which included a past-due mortgage account. The total outstanding debt was approximately $79,000.

The judge initially found against the applicant on all Statement of Reasons (SOR) allegations, citing disqualifying condition AG ¶ 20(a). However, the appeal board did not uphold this decision.

Instead, the board remanded the case for further consideration. This remand was specifically to evaluate new evidence presented by the applicant regarding his student loans, particularly in light of a Department of Education announcement concerning the discharge of certain debts. The ultimate outcome of the security clearance decision is currently none, pending this further review.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 12, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 16, 2023Decision remanded for further consideration.

Cite For

Remand for Consideration of New Evidence Regarding Student Loans
Impact of Department of Education Debt Discharge on Financial Considerations
Pro Se Representation in Security Clearance Appeals

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge's ruling was arbitrary and capricious. The Board remanded the case for further consideration of new evidence regarding the discharge of student loans by the Department of Education.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBryan J. Olmos — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantNot reached
The Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board remanded the decision for corrective action due to the need to assess the impact of the Department of Education's discharge of student loans on the Applicant's financial situation.

Other

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must determine the impact of the Department of Education's action on Applicant's student loans and may reopen the record to receive additional evidence from the parties.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealNo de-novo re-decisionProcedural compliance

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Moira Modzelewski
Allison 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. 22-01667

)

) 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: May 16, 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 September 12, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of 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. Department Counsel mailed the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on October 28, 2022, and afforded him an opportunity to file objections or submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. On March 16, 2023, after reviewing the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Bryan J. Olmos 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 eight delinquent Department of Education (DoE) student loans totaling about $33,000 and that he had three other delinquent debts totaling about $46,000, including a past-due mortgage account. The Judge found against Applicant on each of the SOR allegations. For reason stated below, we remand the Judge’s decision for corrective action. In his appeal brief, Applicant provides new evidence, including a DoE document and documents concerning other debts. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant’s student loans arose from his attendance at ITT Technical Institute (ITT) between 2013 and 2015, for which he was awarded an associate’s degree. In the decision, the Judge noted that Applicant supplied a copy of a DoE loan rehabilitation application, dated March 2022, and that Applicant provided no evidence of payments in compliance with it. Decision at 2. In ISCR Case No. 21-01688 (App. Bd. Jan. 30, 2023), the Appeal Board took administrative notice of a DoE press release of August 16, 2022, that announced it was discharging ITT student loan debts. See https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department approves-39-billion-group-discharge-208000-borrowers-who-attended-itt-technical-institute. We again take administrative notice of that press release, in which the Secretary of Education is quoted as saying: It is time for student borrowers to stop shouldering the burden from ITT’s years of lies and false promises[.] . . . The evidence shows that for years, ITT’s leaders intentionally misled students about the quality of their programs in order to profit off federal student loan programs with no regard for the hardship this would cause. [Appeal Board Exhibit 1.] See also ISCR Case No. 20-03688 (App. Bd. Mar. 2, 2023) and ISCR Case No. 21-02722 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2023), other remands involving DoE’s discharges of student loans. Based on the foregoing, the Judge’s decision is remanded so that he may determine the impact of DoE’s action on Applicant’s student loans, which makes up a large percentage of the alleged debt. The Judge may reopen the record to receive additional evidence from the parties. On remand, the Judge is required to issue a new decision. Directive ¶ E3.1.35. The Board retains no continuing jurisdiction over a remanded decision. However, a Judge’s decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28. and E3.1.30.

ORDER

The decision is REMANDED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board