CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01003 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-01003denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-01003

Jan 8, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A government contractor in his mid-40s, with a history of three marriages and two children, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $76,000. While the judge found in the applicant's favor regarding a $10,000 child support obligation, the remaining 16 debts were not sufficiently mitigated.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, and although mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) were considered, they were not enough to overcome the financial concerns. The judge ultimately found against the applicant on 16 of the 17 debts, leading to the denial.

The appeal affirmed the initial decision, as new evidence was not permissible for consideration, and the judge's original determination was deemed sustainable. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and not recent.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate that the financial issues were beyond his control.
AG ¶ 20(c)notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
AG ¶ 20(d)notedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
AG ¶ 20(e)notedThe Person Has a Reasonable Basis to Expect to Be Able to Satisfy 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 issuedJun 20, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 8, 2023
Decision dateJan 8, 2024Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Multiple Delinquent Debts
Impact of New Evidence on Appeal Process
Standards for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied his security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge committed harmful error, but the Board found no such error and affirmed the decision. The Judge had ruled favorably on one debt but against the applicant on the remaining debts totaling approximately $76,000.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoss D. Hyams — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge committed harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and provided a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — 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. 22-01003

)

) 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 8, 2024

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 20, 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 the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On November 8, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Ross D. Hyams denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is in his mid-40s. He has been married three times, most recently since 2019, and has two children. He has been employed by a government contractor since 2019. The SOR alleged 17 delinquent debts, including auto, student loan, consumer, residential lease, and child support accounts, totaling approximately $76,000. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on the allegation regarding a child support obligation past due for approximately $10,000 and against him on the remaining 16 debts.

On appeal, Applicant submits new evidence in the form of a narrative update on the status of his student loans and overall debt reduction. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this 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). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski 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