CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02841.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02841.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02841.a1

Mar 7, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ongoing financial issues. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding delinquent debts.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of a budget or responsible spending practices, nor did they present a clear debt repayment plan. The board concluded that the applicant's financial problems were likely to continue, leading to the denial of the security clearance. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were applied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not present meaningful evidence of debt resolution.

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 issuedAug 25, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 3, 2018Decision on the written record.
Decision dateMar 7, 2019Appeal decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment Plans as a Basis for Denial
Rejection of Claims Regarding the Judge's Consideration of Evidence in Financial Cases.

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 a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and applied the wrong standard. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the evaluation of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, particularly regarding his prioritization of non-SOR obligations.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge applied the wrong standard in evaluating his case.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge considered the evidence and applied the correct standards in reaching the decision. The applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's findings were arbitrary or capricious.

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
Charles C. Hale

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 contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, in particular information provided in his Answer to the SOR about his having prioritized payment of non- SOR obligations owed to family members. A Judge is not expected to address everything in the record, which would be a practical impossibility. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-02841.a1 DATE: 03/07/2019 DATE: March 7, 2019 In Re: --------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-02841

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Patrick J. Hughes, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 25, 2017, 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 decision on the written record. On October 3, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider all of the evidence in the record and whether the Judge applied the wrong standard in evaluating Applicant’s case, rendering his decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s SOR lists several delinquent credit card accounts and three judgments, two of which he has paid. Applicant operated a business from 2006 to 2016, which did not succeed, especially in 2014 and later. He had difficulty paying bills. Applicant enrolled in debt relief firms. He was not able to make the required payments under the earlier one, and he provided no information about the status of the other. Aside from the two judgments that he has paid, Applicant submitted no evidence of payment on his SOR debts. He presented no evidence of a budget or of his spending practices. Given the extent of Applicant’s remaining debts, it is likely that his financial problems will continue into the future. Although his business failure was a circumstance beyond his control, Applicant has not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his delinquent debts. He has satisfied only two of his SOR debts, even though he has been fully employed since 2016. He has never had financial counseling, and, though his debt programs refer to credit counseling, there is no evidence as to what this consisted of. Applicant has not presented meaningful evidence of debt resolution. He is not required to have paid off all debts in the SOR, but he should have a plan to pay his debts, supported by evidence that he is implementing that plan.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has submitted exhibits which were not part of the record. The Board may not consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, in particular information provided in his Answer to the SOR about his having prioritized payment of non-SOR obligations owed to family members. A Judge is not expected to address everything in the record, which would be a practical impossibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-02243 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 30, 2018). Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-04198 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2019). Applicant contends that the Judge held him to an impossibly high standard, in that he stated that Applicant’s problems would likely extend well into the future. He argues that no one can be expected to remain debt-free. However, we construe the challenged statement to mean that, despite having held employment since 2016, Applicant has not established a track record of debt payment. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015). In fact, the Judge acknowledged explicitly that an applicant is not required to pay off all debts in order to receive a clearance. The Judge did not employ the wrong standard in resolving Applicant’s case for mitigation. Compare, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15- 08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 27, 2017) “...[T]he Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s ‘financial issues are recent and ongoing’...” Applicant cites a document the Board sends to the parties in all its cases. The document mentions that the chairperson or designee may vary the terms of the document in certain circumstances. The document does not say that the provisions of the Directive will be varied. Indeed, the Chairperson has no such authority. 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 Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board