A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 23-00256
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 10, 2025 · Administrative Judge James B. Norman · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security concerns under Guideline F related to financial considerations due to twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,500. The judge found against the applicant on the majority of claims, concluding that her post-hearing efforts to address the debts were insufficient to demonstrate responsible action. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not show harmful error in the judge's decision.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,500.
- The judge found against the applicant on the majority of claims related to financial irresponsibility.
- The applicant's post-hearing efforts to settle debts were deemed insufficient.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2023-03-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2025-02-13
- Decision date
- 2025-04-10
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Post-hearing Actions to Mitigate Financial Concerns
- Affirmation of a Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Alleged on 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 under Guideline F. The Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.
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. 23-00256
)
) 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: April 10, 2025
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 13¸ 2023, 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 February 13, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Philip J. Katauskas denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Discussion
Under Guideline F, the SOR alleged twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,500. In response to the SOR, Applicant denied some of the allegations and admitted others with explanations for how the debts were incurred and became delinquent. Two of the allegations were withdrawn and the Judge found favorably for Applicant on three others. He found against Applicant on the remaining allegations. On appeal, Applicant makes no allegation that the Judge
erred, but instead asserts that she provided evidence that she had set up payment arrangements and, therefore, “did what was asked of [her].” Appeal Brief at 1. In his decision, the Judge noted that Applicant had contacted two creditors in an effort to secure settlement offers and had contacted another for a balance inquiry. Despite this, he concluded that she had not acted responsibly because these efforts were taken after the hearing. Decision at 9–10. The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the judge committed harmful error. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is sustainable. Accordingly, the Judge’s decision is affirmed.
Order
The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-00256 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James B. Norman James B. Norman Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board