CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00291.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00291.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00291.a1

Mar 19, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to persistent financial issues. These problems stemmed from a history of irresponsible spending and unemployment.

Despite filing for bankruptcy, the applicant failed to demonstrate financial rehabilitation. Specifically, he did not provide a current budget or any evidence of responsible financial management. Furthermore, there was no track record of payments on his student loans, and he did not submit character references to support his case.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the judge's findings were reasonable and consistent with national security interests. The applicant's inability to show a commitment to resolving his financial obligations and establishing a pattern of fiscal responsibility ultimately led to the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge did not find that the applicant's financial circumstances did not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

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 issuedJun 20, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 20, 2018
Decision dateMar 19, 2019

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Rehabilitation in Financial Matters
Importance of Demonstrating Current Reliability and Good Judgment in Financial Considerations

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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial issues under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Board concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant attributed his financial problems to his having lived beyond his means and to his unemployment. His irresponsible spending led to judgments being levied against him. The Judge concluded that the receipt of the SOR precipitated Applicant’s bankruptcy filing. Applicant provided no current budget. He has no track record of payment on the student loans, nor did he submit character references, his work record, or evidence of community involvement. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-00291.a1 DATE: 03/19/2019 DATE: March 19, 2019 In Re: ----------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-00291

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On December 20, 2018, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant has been employed by a Defense contractor since October 2013. He experienced unemployment from September 2012 until he assumed his current duties. He held a clearance from 2002 until 2007. Applicant’s SOR alleges numerous delinquent debts. The ones at issue in this appeal are student loans. Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in September 2016, and his debts were discharged the following January. All of his SOR debts were covered by the bankruptcy discharge, except for the student loans. Applicant entered into a repayment plan for them in October 2017. Applicant attributed his financial problems to his having lived beyond his means and to his unemployment. His irresponsible spending led to judgments being levied against him. The Judge concluded that the receipt of the SOR precipitated Applicant’s bankruptcy filing. Applicant provided no current budget. He has no track record of payment on the student loans, nor did he submit character references, his work record, or evidence of community involvement. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing and did not result from circumstances outside his control, given his admission of irresponsible spending. However, he also stated that Applicant’s financial problems are unlikely to recur. The Judge noted that Applicant admitted to his interviewer in 2015 that his student loans would not be discharged but did not arrange a payment plan until after the hearing.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes information not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant notes the Judge’s comment that he did not provide character evidence. He points out that his mother appeared at the hearing and testified that he is trustworthy. We conclude that this error is harmless, in that it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.17-01181 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 30, 2018). Applicant cites to his prior belief that his student loans were covered by bankruptcy. He states that he set up a payment plan as soon as he discovered otherwise and that the timing of his bankruptcy filing after receipt of the SOR was merely coincidental. He also cites to the Judge’s conclusion that his problems are unlikely to recur. On this last point, the mitigating condition in question also requires that the financial circumstances do not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(a). The Judge did not make a finding that this criterion had been satisfied. All in all, Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02463 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018). Applicant notes that the Judge’s decision was issued long after the hearing. Applicant has not shown how this delay caused the Judge to commit a factual or legal error based on the record that was before him. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09421 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 2, 2018); see also DISCR Case No. 92-0009 (App. Bd. May 11, 1994). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse decision 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). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board