A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 22-01003
Appeal BoardDecided Jan 8, 2024 · Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a government contractor in his mid-40s with a history of three marriages and two children, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $76,000. The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding a child support obligation of $10,000 but denied the security clearance based on the remaining debts, which were not sufficiently mitigated. The appeal was affirmed as new evidence could not be considered and the judge's decision was deemed sustainable.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $76,000, which raised significant financial concerns.
- The judge found against the applicant on 16 of the 17 debts, indicating insufficient mitigation of financial issues.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(a) The behavior was not recentrejected
- AG ¶ 20(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person's controlrejected
- AG ¶ 20(c) The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problemnoted
- AG ¶ 20(d) The person has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debtsnoted
- AG ¶ 20(e) The person has a reasonable basis to expect to be able to satisfy debtsnoted
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2022-06-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2023-11-08
- Decision date
- 2024-01-08 Appeal 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
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.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
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
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