CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00817.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00817.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00817.a1

Jan 7, 2019· Hon. Charles C. Hale· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to substantial delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding the judge's evaluation of the evidence reasonable and consistent with national security interests.

The primary disqualifying conditions raised were under AG ¶ 19(a), related to the applicant's financial issues. These included a significant number of delinquent debts, predominantly student loans, and unresolved medical expenses.

The judge determined that these financial issues raised concerns regarding the applicant's judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's inability to satisfy debts raised concerns about her judgment and reliability.

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 issuedApr 19, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 9, 2018Decision on the written record.
Decision dateJan 7, 2019

Cite For

Evaluation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Standards for Weighing Evidence in Security Clearance Cases
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly weigh the evidence. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's evaluation of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly weigh the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge did not weigh the evidence in an arbitrary or capricious manner and that the decision was reasonable based on the record.

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

James E. Moody — 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: To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence, we conclude that Applicant has not shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00817.a1 DATE: 01/07/2019 DATE: January 7, 2019 In Re: -------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00817

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 April 19, 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 decision on the written record. On October 9, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found that Applicant had a substantial number of delinquent debts, most of which were for student loans. The Judge resolved the loans in Applicant’s favor, although he found against her on other allegations, which were for a medical expense and for various collection accounts. Applicant’s brief includes a substantial amount of information from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. She cites to various personal circumstances that affected her financial problems and contends that her debts do not reflect poorly upon her character. To the extent that she is arguing that the Judge failed properly to weigh the evidence, we conclude that 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). She also notes that she does not have any sort of problem with alcohol abuse, gambling, mental health issues, etc. She appears to be referring to Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 18, which is quoted in the SOR and in the Decision. This paragraph states, among other things, that financial distress can be caused or exacerbated by other issues of security concern, such as those difficulties that Applicant mentions in her brief. However, that aspect of the Guideline F security concern was not raised in Applicant’s case. As she states, there is nothing in the record to suggest that she abuses alcohol, gambles, or has mental health difficulties. Rather, the aspect of the concern that the Judge discussed was that Applicant’s apparent inability to satisfy debts and her history of not meeting financial problems raised questions about her judgement and reliability.1 This was reasonable, in light of the record that was before him. We find no error in the Judge’s treatment of the disqualifying conditions. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody 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

FOOTNOTES

1 See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 19(a) and (c).