Loading case…

ISCR 23-02861: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2024) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-02861denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-02861

Oct 21, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied a clearance due to significant financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had ten delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $20,000, which raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

The Administrative Judge determined that the applicant had not taken sufficient action to resolve these debts and failed to demonstrate that they were either resolved or in the process of being resolved. This lack of action was a primary factor in the denial.

The Appeal Board subsequently affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, concluding that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's application of the Whole-Person Concept. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedMar 18, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 16, 2024
Decision dateOct 21, 2024

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Financial Cases
Burden of Proof on the Applicant to Demonstrate 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.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge unfairly applied the Whole-Person Concept and requested reconsideration. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGregg A. Cervi denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge unfairly applied the Whole-Person Concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record. Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed harmful error.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
James B. Norman
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. 23-02861

)

) 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: October 21, 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 March 18, 2024, 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 September 16, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged ten delinquent consumer accounts placed for collection for approximately $20,000. The Judge found against Applicant on all allegations, noting that, while her delinquent debts were accumulated due largely to circumstances beyond her control, she had neither taken action to address the debts nor shown that they were resolved or in the process of being resolved.

There is no presumption of error below and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the judge committed factual or legal error. See ISCR Case No. 00-0050, 2001 WL 1044490 at *1 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2001). On appeal, Applicant contends that the Judge unfairly applied the Whole-Person Concept, reiterates the explanation for her debts as provided in her SOR response, and requests reconsideration of the decision. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and our authority to review a case is limited to matters in which the appealing party has raised a claim of harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence, including that addressing the Whole-Person Concept, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. “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).

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-02861 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board