CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02009.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02009.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02009.a1

Apr 25, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a clearance primarily due to unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $14,000, falling under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had seven delinquent debts, mostly from medical expenses, and failed to demonstrate responsible action in addressing them. This included not following up on insurance claims or providing evidence of efforts to contact creditors or resolve the outstanding amounts.

While the applicant had an excellent reputation for character, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board found that the applicant did not show a good-faith effort to resolve the debts, despite the presence of mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 21.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, specifically the applicant's failure to take responsible steps to manage or resolve the significant financial delinquencies. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) was also a factor, though the primary issues cited for denial were financial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not show a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.

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 issuedSep 6, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 7, 2019
Decision dateApr 25, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Effort to Resolve Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Standard for Granting Clearance Consistent with National Security Interests

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

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.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to meet his burden of persuasion regarding his financial issues. The Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious, and the decision was consistent with national security interests.

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 Y. 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; Guideline J DIGEST: Applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony supports the Judge’s conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02009.a1 DATE: 04/25/2019 DATE: April 25, 2019 In Re: --------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02009

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On September 6, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On February 7, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline J are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis The Judge made the following findings that are pertinent to the issue raised on appeal: from 2007 to 2016, Applicant acquired seven delinquent debts, totaling over $14,000. These were for medical expenses and a consumer account. Applicant attributed the medical debts to his wife’s illness while he was deployed overseas. His wife passed away, and he does not know if she ever submitted claims to the couple’s medical insurer. Applicant made no follow-up regarding the extent to which these debts were covered by insurance. Applicant purchased a home with the proceeds from his wife’s life insurance policy, applying none of them toward resolving his debts. He provided no evidence that he had lodged disputes of these debts, nor did he present evidence of efforts to contact his creditors or the credit repair firm that he had hired. He provided no “helpful documentation” of steps to resolve his SOR debts. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for character, reliability, and trustworthiness. Decision at 4. Though noting Applicant’s wife’s death, the Judge concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to the debts listed in the SOR. He also concluded that Applicant had not shown that he initiated or is adhering to a good-faith effort to pay his debts. Although his debts are not longer listed on his credit report, this does not demonstrate that they have actually been resolved in such as way a to mitigate the concerns arising from them. All in all, Applicant has not demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt resolution.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence that he contends that the Judge did not consider or that he did not properly weigh. This includes the circumstances under which his debts arose, his having hired a firm to address his debts, his contention that the medical debts should be paid by his insurer, etc. The Judge made findings about these things. Applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony supports the Judge’s conclusion that he had not met his burden of persuasion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-07062 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 21, 2017). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has he shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited in support of his effort to obtain a favorable decision. However, Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. Each case must be decided on its own merits. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03363 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2018). The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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