Appeal Board Decision: Government and Applicant Appearances

Government: Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Applicant: Pro Se

The Department of Defense (DoD) denied Applicant a security clearance on November 13, 2023, citing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. These concerns were based on two delinquent credit card debts totaling nearly $20,000 and the failure to timely file Federal income tax returns for 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Applicant chose a decision based on the written record, and the Government submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM) for consideration. After reviewing the evidence, DOHA Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied the Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. The Applicant appealed, asserting that the Judge erred by not holding a hearing and failing to consider all mitigating evidence.

Judge’s Findings and Analysis

Applicant, in his late 30s, holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree and honorably served in the military from 2003 to 2015. While Applicant successfully mitigated the tax issues, he acknowledged the delinquent debts. After separating from the military in 2016, he defaulted on these debts, which were charged off and placed for collection. Although one of the debts was sent to a collection agency in 2022, Applicant did not provide evidence of efforts to resolve the debts.

The Judge found that Applicant had not made significant efforts to resolve the debts and that they remained overdue. She noted that despite Applicant’s claim of wanting to settle the debts, there were no signs of good-faith efforts to address the issue.

Discussion

Applicant asserted that he was willing to attend a hearing via video conference but was not given the chance. However, the record shows that Applicant knowingly waived his right to a hearing and chose to have the decision based on the written record. He was fully aware of this choice and had an opportunity to submit additional evidence, which was considered.

On appeal, Applicant raised concerns about the Judge’s decision not to hold a hearing. However, the Appeal Board found no evidence that the Judge’s actions were arbitrary or capricious. The Board affirmed that the primary focus of the security clearance process is to assess an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, not to resolve personal debts.

Order

The Appeal Board affirmed the decision to deny Applicant’s security clearance, stating that any doubt concerning national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security.

Appeal Board Decision – ISCR Case No. 23-02203

Appearances:

For the Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

For the Applicant: Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) denied the Applicant’s security clearance based on financial concerns outlined in Guideline F of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. The Statement of Reasons (SOR), issued on November 9, 2023, listed 13 financial issues, mostly involving delinquent credit card accounts.

Following a formal hearing, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) denied the Applicant’s clearance on May 28, 2024. The Judge ruled against the Applicant on 11 of the 13 allegations.

Appeal Argument and Board Analysis

On appeal, the Applicant claimed the Judge erred in stating when his financial issues began. He pointed out that the Judge acknowledged he was “not able to make payments from 2019 to 2020,” while the Applicant contended he made payments up until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the Judge’s decision actually stated that the Applicant had been unable to pay his debts “since about 2019 or 2020.”

While there was some ambiguity in the timeline, the Appeal Board found this discrepancy immaterial. Applicant himself testified that he had a clean financial record prior to 2020. In context, the Board determined that even if there were a minor factual error, it was harmless and did not affect the outcome.

The Applicant raised no other claims of error. The Appeal Board reiterated that it does not reweigh evidence or review cases de novo. Its role is limited to identifying harmful legal or factual errors, and none were found here.

Final Order

The Appeal Board concluded that the Judge’s decision was well-supported by the evidence and properly explained. Security clearance determinations must align with national security interests. As outlined in both Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), and the Adjudicative Guidelines, any doubt is resolved in favor of national security.

The decision is AFFIRMED.

Appeal Board Decision – ISCR Case No. 23-02174

Appearances:

For the Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

For the Applicant: Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) denied the Applicant’s security clearance due to financial concerns under Guideline F of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. A Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued on October 5, 2023, citing nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $42,000.

The Applicant waived his right to a hearing and requested a decision based on the written record. On February 28, 2024, DOHA Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied clearance eligibility. The Judge ruled in Applicant’s favor on two debts, but found the remaining allegations substantiated. The Applicant appealed the decision.

Judge’s Findings

The Applicant, in his mid-30s, has held a security clearance since 2012 and works as a systems server engineer for a defense contractor. He attributed his financial problems to past immaturity and the overuse of available credit. While he engaged a credit repair service and documented one payoff, a settlement offer, and some disputed items, he did not provide proof that most of the debts were resolved through good-faith payments or formal agreements.

The Judge concluded that promises to resolve debts in the future—without documentation of actual repayment—do not establish mitigation. Deletion of accounts from a credit report, the Judge noted, is not equivalent to resolving the underlying financial obligations.

Appeal Issues and Analysis

On appeal, the Applicant argued that the Judge made factual errors regarding his age, marital status, and job title. The Appeal Board agreed that some background details were incorrect but deemed those errors harmless because they had no bearing on the case outcome.

The Applicant also claimed the Judge failed to give proper weight to a debt settlement offer and that he needed more time to provide evidence of repayment efforts. He submitted new documents on appeal, which the Board could not consider under Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

The Board emphasized that disagreement with how the Judge weighed evidence does not amount to legal error. The Judge’s decision was based on the Applicant’s financial history and lack of meaningful debt resolution prior to the clearance review.

Final Determination

The Appeal Board affirmed that the Judge properly considered the evidence and explained the rationale for denying the clearance. As the Board reiterated, security clearance decisions are about judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness—not simply whether debts have been paid.

The decision is AFFIRMED.

Appeal Board Decision – ISCR Case No. 23-01772

Appearances:

For the Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

For the Applicant: Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) denied the Applicant’s security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). A Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued on September 15, 2023, alleged that the Applicant used marijuana from June 2017 to March 2022—including once while holding a clearance.

The Applicant elected a decision on the written record and did not submit a response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). On March 21, 2024, DOHA Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied the clearance. The Applicant appealed.

Judge’s Findings

The Applicant, in his mid-twenties, has held a security clearance since June 2021 and began working for a defense contractor in January 2023. He admitted to using marijuana socially from 2017 through 2022 and confirmed he used it in March 2022 while holding a clearance—despite being formally notified that such use was prohibited.

Although the Applicant has since recommitted to abstinence, the Judge found the recency of his misconduct—and violation of a prior abstinence commitment—too serious to ignore. The use of marijuana after obtaining clearance raised significant concerns about his judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Appeal Arguments and Board Analysis

On appeal, the Applicant argued that the Judge relied on outdated precedent and failed to consider evolving marijuana laws and research. He claimed his use posed no real security risk and emphasized that marijuana is legal in his state, that he was not impaired at work, and that alcohol is more harmful.

The Appeal Board rejected these arguments, reiterating long-standing principles:

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, regardless of state legalization.

The adjudicative standard requires that any doubt be resolved in favor of national security.

Use of marijuana after receiving clearance and after being warned against it is especially serious.

The Board emphasized that DOHA proceedings are not a forum for debating drug policy. Federal law and national security policy govern clearance eligibility—not state law or personal opinion. The 2021 guidance from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reaffirms that marijuana use, even where legalized locally, remains disqualifying under federal adjudicative guidelines.

Final Determination

The Board concluded that the Judge’s findings were supported by the record, and the Applicant failed to show any legal error. Expressed intent to use marijuana or casual disregard for federal drug laws continues to raise serious concerns in clearance adjudications.

The decision is AFFIRMED.

Appeal Board Decision – ISCR Case No. 23-01784

Appearances:

For the Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Chief Department Counsel

For the Applicant: Pro se

The Department of Defense (DoD) denied the Applicant’s security clearance based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). A Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued on August 16, 2023, alleging two periods of marijuana use: (1) from January 2015 to August 2017, and (2) from January to June 2022, while the Applicant allegedly had access to classified information.

After reviewing the written record, DOHA Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran issued a decision on February 21, 2024, denying the Applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. The Applicant appealed.

Judge’s Findings

The Judge found in the Applicant’s favor on the earlier marijuana use (2015–2017), but sustained the allegation involving use from January to June 2022. However, the Judge clarified that this 2022 use occurred after clearance was granted, but not while actually accessing classified material.

The Judge concluded that even absent use while actively handling classified information, the post-clearance drug use still raised significant concerns about the Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and willingness to follow security rules.

Appeal Issues and Board Analysis

On appeal, the Applicant did not contest any factual findings. Instead, he argued that the Judge’s overall unfavorable determination was excessive, especially considering the strong character references presented at the hearing. One witness praised the Applicant’s dependability, loyalty, and integrity and recommended him for a clearance.

The Applicant also asserted that the denial appeared intended only to block a Top Secret clearance—not revoke his Secret clearance, which he currently held.

The Appeal Board rejected both arguments:

First, the opinions of character witnesses, while helpful, are not binding on the Judge.

Second, the Judge’s ruling pertained to the Applicant’s overall security eligibility, not a specific clearance level. Clearance decisions do not distinguish between “Secret” and “Top Secret” in terms of adjudicative standards.

The Board reiterated that previously holding a clearance does not create a right to retain it, and the government may reassess eligibility at any time based on new facts.

Final Determination

The Board found that the Judge considered the relevant evidence, explained his reasoning, and reached a decision consistent with law and policy. Under the national security standard, any doubt is resolved against the applicant.

The decision is AFFIRMED.