ISCR Case No. 24-00808

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 24-00808

)

) 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: May 19, 2025

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Rochelle Chernikoff, Personal Representative The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 25, 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) (SEAD 4) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On March 19, 2025, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.

The SOR alleged that Applicant carried delinquent federal tax balances of approximately $600 for tax year 2015 and $62,000 for tax year 2016, and that he had multiple liens entered against him for various delinquent state tax balances totaling approximately $25,000. In response to the SOR, Applicant denied the 2015 federal tax balance on the basis that it was paid earlier in the year and admitted all of the remaining allegations with explanation. Finding that Applicant had also

since paid the state tax liens, the Judge resolved all allegations except for the 2016 federal tax balance favorably. The Judge found adversely to the $62,000 federal tax balance, noting that Applicant had made no payments towards resolving the debt and only recently filed an appeal to have the debt reconsidered, with no resolution as of the close of the record. Citing that Applicant’s debts were ignored for many years, the Judge concluded that “his history of financial irresponsibility and inaction for so long casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Decision at 8. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.30. Citing the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant “needs more time to diligently work towards resolving his remaining back taxes to show the Government that he can be financially responsible,” Applicant contends that the Judge failed to “incorporate[] available measures at this time to manage any minor residual risk to national security.” Appeal Brief (quoting Decision at 8). Applicant requests that the case be remanded for consideration of “continued eligibility with appropriate mitigation measures to manage any remaining risk to national security” – i.e., conditional security eligibility. Id. Appendix C of SEAD 4 provides authority to grant conditional security eligibility, “despite the presence of issue information that can be partially but not completely mitigated, with the provision that additional security measures shall be required to mitigate the issue(s).” Applicant did not request conditional eligibility at hearing and nothing in the record supports a conclusion that the Judge erred in not granting it. Moreover, although Appendix C provides authority to grant conditional security eligibility,1 our review of the record below reflects no evidence of proposed additional security measures or the efficacy thereof. Accordingly, Applicant has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C is merited.

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed harmful error. Our review of the record reflects that the Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dept. of 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). 1 DIR. FOR DEF. INT. (INT. & SEC.), Memorandum (Jan. 12, 2018) (“Effective immediately, authority to grant clearance eligibility with one of the exceptions enumerated in Appendix C is granted to any adjudicative, hearing, or appeal official or entity now authorized to grant clearance eligibility when they have jurisdiction to render the eligibility determination.”).

The decision in ISCR Case No. 24-00808 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board