CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02025 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-02025denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02025

Sep 20, 2023· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $117,000. The applicant, representing himself, admitted to 10 of the allegations concerning his financial issues.

However, the denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support his case or explain the circumstances that led to his financial problems. Crucially, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating good-faith efforts to resolve these debts.

Ultimately, the judge's decision to deny the clearance was affirmed on appeal, with no harmful errors found in the adjudication process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJan 17, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 28, 2023
Decision dateSep 20, 2023Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Lack of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Affirmation of Adjudication Process Without Harmful Errors

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant admitted to several debts but did not provide evidence of efforts to resolve them. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the adjudication process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGatha Manns — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed a lack of fairness and impartiality in the adjudication process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and followed proper procedures. The Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised against him.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewProcedural compliance

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. 22-02025

)

) 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 20, 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 January 17, 2023, 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 decision on the written record. On July 28, 2023, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gatha Manns 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 12 delinquent debts totaling about $117,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted 10 of the allegations and denied the remaining two totaling about 19,000. The Judge stated: [Applicant] did not provide documentary evidence to support his case, nor did he explain the circumstances that led to his financial problems. He presented no

evidence to show his financial problems were incurred due to circumstances beyond his control. He did not provide information or evidence about his income, expenses, or other financial resources at his disposal. Nor did he provide information or evidence he received or is receiving financial counseling, and his financial problems are not under control. [Decision at 6.] The Judge found in favor of Applicant on two alleged debts totaling about $8,600 and against him on the other allegations, concluding there was insufficient evidence presented to show that he made a good-faith effort to pay his debts, that he acted responsibly under the circumstances, or that his financial problems will be resolved within a reasonable time. On appeal, Applicant does not specifically assert that the Judge committed any harmful error. Rather, he states that he was deeply troubled by the lack of fairness and impartiality in the adjudication process, claiming that no effort was made to determine his military discharge status and arguing that circumstances beyond his control created his financial problems. He requests that his case be thoroughly reviewed and indicates that he is willing to provide additional documentation, including a current credit report and his DD-214 showing a medical retirement from the military. These assertions fail to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. We first note that Applicant’s SOR Response contains no documentation showing that he was taking action to resolve the alleged debts. On March 2, 2023, the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, which included all of the documentary evidence the Government was submitting to the Judge for consideration. Applicant was provided 30 days from his receipt of the FORM to submit objections or matters in rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation. He was informed that the Judge’s decision would be “based solely on this FORM” unless he submitted additional information. FORM at 4. Applicant submitted no response to the FORM. If there were additional matters that Applicant wanted the Judge to consider beyond those contained in the FORM, he was responsible for providing that information. Based on our review of the record, we find no basis for concluding that Applicant was treated in an unfair manner or that he was denied any due process rights afforded him under the Directive. Finally, we note that the Appeal Board does not review cases de novo, and we are prohibited from receiving or considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 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: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Gregg A. Cervi Gregg A. Cervi Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board