CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00984.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-00984.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00984.a1

Mar 12, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 35-year-old military veteran with an associate's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from approximately $32,000 in ongoing delinquent debts, which raised Disqualifying Condition F.3.

The applicant failed to provide evidence of financial counseling or voluntary payments toward these debts. Furthermore, a proposed plan to resolve the outstanding obligations was not implemented, and the applicant did not contact creditors to establish payment arrangements.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's inability to meet the burden of persuasion regarding his financial situation. Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy 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 issuedMay 15, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself pro se.
Hearing heldDec 20, 2018
Decision dateMar 12, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Evidence of Financial Responsibility
Burden of Persuasion Regarding Financial Situation Not Met

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 regarding the denial of the applicant's security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The 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 examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, which was sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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 delinquent debts are recent and ongoing. His unemployment was a condition beyond his control. He did not provide any proof of financial counseling or of voluntary payments towards his delinquent debts. His child support debt was satisfied though an involuntary tax withholding. Although he has a plan to resolve his delinquent debts, he has not implemented it. He did not provide evidence of contacting creditors to make payment arrangements. He has not met his burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-00984.a1 DATE: 03/12/2019 DATE: March 12, 2019 In Re: ------------------------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-00984

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 May 15, 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 December 20, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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, who is 35 years old, served in the military, and received an honorable discharge. He has earned an associate’s degree. He has been married twice and has five children. He was employed from September 2015 to May 2017, when he was laid off. He remained unemployed until he began working at a car dealership on a commission basis in August 2017. He was also self- employed as a financial advisor since May 2017. He attributes his financial problems to his recent unemployment. Applicant has ten delinquent debts totaling about $32,000. His admissions and a credit report establish the SOR allegations. He noted that his previously payments towards his debts showed he was financially responsible. However, upon being released from a management position, he was unable to make minimum payments towards his debts due to insufficient income. He only had $73 a month for payments on his delinquent debts, but expected that amount to increase in the following years and that he would have them paid by early 2025. He did not provide evidence that he has made any payments. The IRS applied a portion of his tax refund to a delinquent child support debt. He and his wife do not recognize one debt; however, he did not provide evidence of any action to dispute it. Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent and ongoing. His unemployment was a condition beyond his control. He did not provide any proof of financial counseling or of voluntary payments towards his delinquent debts. His child support debt was satisfied though an involuntary tax withholding. Although he has a plan to resolve his delinquent debts, he has not implemented it. He did not provide evidence of contacting creditors to make payment arrangements. He has not met his burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Applicant also contends that the Judge did not properly weigh and consider all of the record evidence. For example, he highlights his job loss, his prior history of financial responsibility, and his plan for repayment of the debts. The Judge, however, made findings about those matters and discussed them in either her mitigation or whole-person analysis. Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02488 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018). 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information 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