CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01923 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01923denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-01923

Sep 26, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) also noted. The denial stemmed from a history of delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,400 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2016.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised due to the admitted multiple delinquent debts and the bankruptcy. While the applicant attributed his financial issues to personal circumstances and claimed progress in resolving some debts, the judges found insufficient evidence of responsible debt management.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c), the applicant's claims regarding debt resolution did not adequately mitigate the security concerns. Consequently, the judges affirmed the denial of the security clearance on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not resolved in a timely manner.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling or Treatment for the ProblemThe applicant did not demonstrate that he acted responsibly to resolve his debts.

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 issuedNov 18, 2022
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateSep 26, 2023Appeal affirmed the initial denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Impact of Ongoing Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Considerations

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 and alcohol consumption. The applicant argued that the judge did not consider all relevant circumstances, including personal issues affecting his financial situation. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's assessment of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles C. Hale — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge erred in failing to take everything into consideration.

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. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
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. 22-01923

)

) 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: September 26, 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 November 18, 2022, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) 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 decision on the written record. In the File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government withdrew the sole Guideline G allegation. On July 24, 2023, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Charles C. Hale 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. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $14,400 and that he received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2016. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted with comments four of the debt allegations and the bankruptcy discharge allegation. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two of the alleged debts and against him on

the other Guideline F allegations. The Judge concluded that, while Applicant’s financial delinquencies were attributable to circumstances beyond his control, he did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he acted responsibly to resolve them. On appeal, Applicant contends the Judge erred in failing to take “everything” into consideration. Appeal Brief at 1. He highlights that he made a move across the country, and his time and expenses were going towards pressing matters, such as an emergency custody hearing that arose because his ex-wife was using drugs around his sons. Id. He noted “other things got lost during the process” and, although “they should not have gotten to that point,” his sons were his priority. Id. He contends that his ex-wife opened accounts in his name without his knowledge and argues that he has since taken care of all but one of the alleged debts, noting the remaining debt is under a payment plan and has been removed from a collection status. None of Applicant’s 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). In the decision, the Judge found that Applicant attributed his debts to his second divorce and addressed the status of each alleged debt. The Judge noted that one alleged debt was disputed as fraudulent, three were either resolved or a payment plan was initiated after the SOR was issued, and another debt was no longer listed on his credit report. In concluding that the alleged security concerns were not mitigated, the Judge cited ISCR Case No. 15-03208 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017) (an applicant who waits until his clearance is in jeopardy before resolving debts may be lacking in the judgment expected of those granted security clearance eligibility) and ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015) (mere evidence that debts no longer appear on a credit report is not reason to believe that they have been paid or resolved in a responsible manner). 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: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board