CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01250.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01250.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01250.a1

Feb 13, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to admitted delinquent debts and two bankruptcy discharges. The initial decision cited Disqualifying Condition F.3, which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered, the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that her financial problems were under control or unlikely to recur. Specifically, the evidence presented was inadequate to show responsible financial management.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the judge's decision. The board emphasized the paramount importance of national security in clearance decisions and the applicant's insufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her financial issues were beyond her control.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemThe applicant's evidence of a debt relief program was insufficient to show continuous payments.

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 21, 2018
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 30, 2018Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin.
Decision dateFeb 13, 2019Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Sufficient Documentation to Mitigate Security Concerns
Standard for Granting Clearance Related to 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 under Guideline F. The applicant argued 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 belowRobert J. Kilmartin — 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
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 articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. Debts may fall off credit reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01250.a1 DATE: 02/13/2019 DATE: February 13, 2019 In Re: ------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-01250

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 21, 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 November 30, 2018, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert J. Kilmartin 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 admitted all of the delinquent debts in the SOR and two bankruptcy discharges. She experienced a period of unemployment in 2014 after being laid off from her job. She provided a chart reflecting that certain debts were in a payment plan, but provided no proof of those payments. She enrolled other identified debts in a debt relief program, but provided no evidence of a continuous stream of payments under that program because it was just recently established. She provided documentary evidence of payments towards some debts, had a debt cancelled, and settled a debt. Applicant has done little to resolve her financial problems. She failed to provide sufficient documentation to mitigate the security concerns arising from the alleged debts. She has not meet her burden of showing that she acted responsibly under the circumstances, that her financial problems are under control, or that those problems are unlikely to recur.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief includes extensive explanations and documentation that are not contained in the record. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge did not properly weigh and consider all of the relevant evidence. For example, she argues that the Judge “appears to have used [a more recent credit report] to identify new debts not captured in [an earlier] credit report, but not highlight debts that no longer appear on my credit report or that I am no longer financially responsible due to the age or validity of the accounts.” Appeal Brief at 1. However, the fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful, independent evidence as to the disposition of the debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 2, 2018). Debts may fall off credit reports for various reasons, including the passage of time. Id. Applicant’s arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor sufficient 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. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief fails to establish 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