CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ADP Case No. 22-01837 — CASE

ISCR Case ADP Case No. 22-01837denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ADP Case No. 22-01837

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

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant, representing herself, faced concerns regarding 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $110,000.

While the judge found in the applicant's favor on seven of these debts, the ruling went against her on the remaining allegations. This outcome led to the denial of her security clearance. The disqualifying condition F.1 was raised, and mitigating condition F.2 was considered but ultimately not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was affirmed on appeal, as the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error in the judge's initial decision. The substantial number and total amount of the unresolved delinquent debts were the primary factors in the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $110,000, which raised significant financial concerns.
The judge ruled against the applicant on the majority of the debts, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that her financial issues were beyond her control.

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 8, 2024

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance
Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error in Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: )

)

----- )

ADP Case No. 22-01837

)

) Applicant for a Public Trust Position ) _______________________________________) 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 8, 2024

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 22, 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) of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) (SEAD 4) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 21, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged 14 delinquent debts totaling approximately $110,000. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on seven alleged debts and against her on the remaining allegations. In her appeal brief, Applicant does not allege the Judge erred. Instead, she argues for reconsideration of the Judge’s decision and requests an opportunity to demonstrate her intent to resolve debts in the future. Consistent with the following, we affirm.

Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in her early 50sand has worked for her current employer for about one year. She completed an associate degree in 2007, using student loans to fund her degree. She enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program the day before her hearing. She has never made a payment towards her student loans, and they were in a default status until sometime in 2022. She has applied to rehabilitate her student loans, and if accepted, hopes to start a repayment plan. Applicant began contacting creditors shortly before her hearing. She resolved medical debts and two other accounts. She has made payment arrangements, settled a debt, and agreed to future payments on other SOR debts. However, the Judge held that Applicant’s attempts to resolve accounts occurred almost a year after receiving the SOR and did not demonstrate responsible actions or that her future financial issues are unlikely to recur. Her participation in financial counseling does not overcome her history of financial irresponsibility.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief does not assert that the Judge committed any harmful error, nor does she dispute the Judge’s findings or conclusions. Rather, she acknowledges her financial status and asserts her intent and determination to rectify it in the future. Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not sufficient to demonstrate that she weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. Because Applicant has not alleged such a harmful error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant security clearance eligibility is sustainable. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988), regarding security clearances: such a determination “may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.”’ ADP Case No. 19-01882 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2020). None of Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020).

ORDER

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: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board