CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00360.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00360.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00360.a1

Apr 4, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unfiled and unpaid taxes. The applicant claimed financial stability and efforts to resolve her debts, but the Appeal Board ultimately affirmed the denial, citing insufficient evidence to challenge the Judge's initial findings.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate security concerns related to her tax obligations. Specifically, the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to counter the Judge's determination that disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were present and unmitigated.

The Appeal Board concluded there was no harmful error in the Judge's decision to deny the clearance. The Board emphasized the paramount importance of national security in all clearance determinations, upholding the finding that the applicant had not resolved the financial security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedMar 23, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 8, 2019
Decision dateApr 4, 2019Appeal decision

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions
Insufficient Evidence to Challenge Judge's Findings on Appeal

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 was filed by the applicant after the Department of Defense denied her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly consider her current financial stability and efforts to resolve her debts. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not establish that the Judge committed any harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not commit any harmful error and that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James F. Duffy
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’s appeal brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. She also argues that, since obtaining her current job, she has become financially secure and continues to make every effort to resolve her debts and tax filings, but she has failed to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00360.a1 DATE: 04/04/2019 DATE: April 4, 2019 In Re: ---------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00360

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 March 23, 2018, 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 January 8, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from unfiled and unpaid Federal and state taxes. In her appeal brief, Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s rulings or findings of fact. Instead, she asks that we look at the facts and reconsider her unfavorable clearance decision. The Board does not review cases de novo. She believes the Judge focused on her past financial problems and did not examine her current efforts to correct those problems. However, her appeal brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-05959 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2016). She also argues that, since obtaining her current job, she has become financially secure and continues to make every effort to resolve her debts and tax filings, but she has failed to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016).

Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board