CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00563 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00563

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date5/7/2024
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00563) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but was denied by the Department of Defense (DoD) due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined 14 financial issues totaling approximately $30,000, which included medical and consumer debts, as well as delinquent federal and state tax obligations. The applicant admitted to some debts while denying others, and an additional allegation regarding the wrongful disposal of a laptop was found in his favor.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a history of financial difficulties, which he attributed to periods of unemployment and being the sole provider for his family. Although he made some sporadic efforts to address his debts, such as entering into installment agreements with tax authorities, the judge noted that these efforts were inconsistent and lacked a meaningful track record of repayment. The applicant also had approximately $50,000 in student loan debt, which was not delinquent at the time of the SOR but was due to begin repayment shortly thereafter. The judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his financial issues.
Ultimately, the administrative judge denied the applicant's request for a security clearance, affirming that the applicant's financial management did not meet the standards required for national security eligibility. The appeal board upheld this decision, stating that the judge had properly considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her conclusions.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 23-00563

May 7, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant representing himself, due to approximately $30,000 in unresolved debts. The appeal affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's insufficient financial management and lack of meaningful efforts to resolve these obligations.

Specifically, the applicant had significant outstanding debts totaling around $30,000. The judges noted that while the applicant admitted to some debts, he denied others, which undermined his credibility.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's lack of a meaningful financial track record and insufficient efforts to address his financial obligations, leading to the conclusion that the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20 were not mitigated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMay 7, 2024

Cite For

Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Insufficient Efforts to Resolve Debts
Lack of Meaningful Financial Track Record

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 did not challenge specific findings but argued that the Judge improperly considered delinquent student loans not alleged in the SOR. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the Applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCandace Le’i Garcia — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge improperly relied upon the delinquency of several student loans despite those loans not being alleged in the SOR.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge properly considered all relevant issues and applied the mitigating conditions appropriately. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the Applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Gregg A. Cervi
James B. Norman

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.