A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-02861
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 21, 2024 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced financial concerns under Guideline F due to ten delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,000. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant did not take action to resolve her debts, leading to the denial of her security clearance. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, stating the applicant failed to demonstrate harmful error in the Judge's application of the Whole-Person Concept.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had ten delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,000.
- The Judge noted a lack of action taken by the applicant to address her debts.
- The applicant did not show that her debts were resolved or in the process of being resolved.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20(a) Financial Considerationsraised
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
- 2024-03-18
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2024-09-16
- Decision date
- 2024-10-21
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
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.
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. 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
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