Loading case…

ISCR 23-00193: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2024) · CASE

ISCR Case 23-00193denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-00193

Jan 22, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied for an applicant, a mid-40s individual with two children and engaged to be married, under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to file tax returns between 2009 and 2021, alongside multiple delinquent debts, including medical accounts and personal loans.

Disqualifying conditions F1 and F3 were raised, though mitigating condition F3 was applied. However, the judge's decision to deny the clearance was upheld on appeal. The applicant did not assert any harmful error by the judge during the appeal process.

Ultimately, the clearance was denied, with the decision affirming that the applicant's financial history presented an unacceptable risk to national security interests.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFailure to File Annual Income Tax Returns
F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Temporary and Were Being ResolvedThe judge found favorably for the applicant on three debts but not on the overall financial situation.

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 issuedFeb 6, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 22, 2024Appeal affirmed.

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Applicant's Failure to Assert Harmful Error on Appeal
National Security Interests as a Basis for 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

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Administrative Judge and sought reconsideration based on prior interim clearance. The Board affirmed the denial, stating that the lack of harmful error justified the decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error, and the decision was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealHarmful-error gatekeeper

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. 23-00193

)

) 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 22, 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 February 6, 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 November 20, 2023, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom denied Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant is in his mid-40s. He is engaged to be married and has two children from previous relationships. From 2001 until he was laid off in 2009, he was employed by a government contractor. Applicant held various jobs between 2011 and 2022, at which time he became a full- time employee of a government contractor. He completed an application for a security clearance on May 12, 2022, and was granted an interim clearance which was withdrawn in February 2023 after issuance of the SOR, which alleged Applicant’s failure to file Federal and state tax returns from 2009 to 2021, as well as five delinquent medical account and personal loan debts. The Judge

found favorably for Applicant as to three of the delinquent debts and against him on the remaining allegations. On appeal, Applicant made no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge and acknowledges that he is “appealing this case not so much because the Judge himself did something wrong.” Instead, he advocates for reconsideration of the Judge’s decision, largely on the basis that he was granted an interim clearance after disclosing the same financial problems ultimately alleged in the SOR. A decision to grant security clearance eligibility does not give the applicant any vested right or entitlement in keeping a security clearance, and a prior grant – even of an interim clearance – does not preclude the Federal Government from considering, at a future date, whether to continue that grant or to revoke it. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 20-03647 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2021). The Appeal Board does not review cases de novo and is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Because Applicant has not made such an allegation of error, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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.’” 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 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