Loading case…

ISCR 23-01303: Guideline F security clearance appeal (2025) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-01303unknown

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-01303

Jan 28, 2025· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

This DOHA security clearance case involved an applicant representing themselves, facing concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The initial decision identified 13 allegations favorably, but also noted two adverse consumer accounts totaling approximately $10,700. These accounts raised a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20.

The applicant appealed the decision. The appeal resulted in a remand of the case, not a final grant or denial of clearance. The remand was ordered to correct an identified error concerning one of the two adverse debts.

The reviewing authority determined that this error may have been outcome determinative, meaning its correction could potentially change the final security clearance decision. Therefore, no final outcome has been reached in this case as it awaits further review and correction at the agency level.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural posture

Decision DateJan 28, 2025

Cite for

Remand for Correction of Identified Errors in Financial Matters
Consideration of Multiple Favorable Allegations Against Adverse Findings
Impact of Financial Errors on Security Clearance Decisions

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

Remanded

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge overlooked evidence of a payment plan for one of the debts. The Board found that this oversight could have been outcome determinative and remanded the case for correction of the error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge overlooked evidence regarding a payment plan for one of the debts.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantError sustained
The Judge's adverse finding on the debt may have been outcome determinative.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge overlooked evidence that may have affected the outcome of the decision, necessitating a remand for correction and further processing.

Ignored material evidence

On remand, the judge must

The Judge must correct the identified error and issue a new decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski (Chair)
Allison Marie
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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

-----

)

ISCR Case No. 23-01303

)

) 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: January 28, 2025

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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 January 22, 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 November 14, 2024, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Background The SOR alleged 15 financial concerns—a mix of delinquent student loan accounts, delinquent federal and state taxes, and delinquent consumer accounts. The Judge found favorably for Applicant on 13 of the alleged concerns and adversely on 2 consumer accounts that totaled approximately $10,700. In his decision, the Judge made the following finding regarding those two accounts: “1.g. and 1.h. Applicant admits that he has past-due debts to Creditor G totaling about

$10,796. Despite having two post-hearing months to submit additional evidence, Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard.” Decision at 2 (internal citations omitted). The Judge’s decision states that Applicant submitted “two packets of documents” post- hearing, which the Judge marked and admitted into evidence as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A and B. Id. at 1–2. Our review of the record confirms that—contrary to the Judge’s finding—AE A contains documents regarding the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.g. Specifically, Applicant submitted proof of a payment plan and an initial payment under that plan. AE A at 13–14. The Judge apparently overlooked these documents. Because the Judge found adversely on only two allegations totaling $10,700, we cannot assume that his error regarding one of those debts, of approximately $5,100, is harmless, as it may have been outcome determinative. E.g., ISCR Case No. 95-0495, 1996 WL 481030 at *3 (App. Bd. March 22, 1996) (citing N.L.R.B v. American Geri-Care, 697 F.2d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 1982) (remand required where there is a significant chance that, but for the error, a different result might have been reached), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 906 (1983). Given these circumstances, the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge to correct the identified error and for further processing consistent with the Directive. Upon remand, the Judge is required to issue a new decision. Directive ¶ E3.1.35. The Board retains no jurisdiction over a remanded decision; however, the Judge’s decision issued after remand may be appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.130.

ORDER

The decision in ISCR Case No. 23-01303 is REMANDED. 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