CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01577.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01577.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01577.a1

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

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $38,500 in delinquent consumer debts. The Appeal Board found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient efforts or means to resolve these outstanding delinquencies.

While the applicant claimed that selling his home would resolve the debts, this was deemed an inadequate promise of future payment without a track record of timely financial responsibility. The Board emphasized the importance of a demonstrated history in financial matters rather than future intentions.

The applicant's assertion of being unaware of his decision to forgo a hearing was also rejected. Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the Board upholding the decision based on the applicant's significant delinquent debts and insufficient evidence of financial responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJun 18, 2018
Answer filedJul 6, 2018Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 6, 2019
Decision dateAug 13, 2019Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of a Track Record in Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Delinquent Debts

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 who was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he would resolve his debts by selling his home, but the Board affirmed the denial, stating that future promises do not substitute for a track record of financial responsibility. The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he would resolve debts by selling his home.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was based on substantial evidence regarding the applicant's financial irresponsibility. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that a number of the debts will be resolved once he sells his home. He made a similar representation in his SOR response over a year ago. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01577.a1 DATE: 08/13/2019 DATE: August 13, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-01577 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 June 18, 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 June 6, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge David M. White denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge summarized the case as follows: Applicant owed more than $38,500 in delinquent consumer debts. He settled one small credit card account for 45% of the balance due, but demonstrated insufficient efforts or means to resolve his remaining delinquencies or establish rehabilitation. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility is denied. [Decision at 1.] Applicant’s appeal brief includes documents and assertions that were not previously presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In the appeal brief, Applicant argues that a number of the debts will be resolved once he sells his home. He made a similar representation in his SOR response over a year ago. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015). Applicant presents other arguments that amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. These arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). Applicant also claims that he was unaware that he elected not to have a hearing before a Judge. The record, however, reflects that he requested a decision on the written record when he submitted his SOR response on July 6, 2018. He now asserts that he would like to have a hearing if that option is still available to him. Absent a showing of factual or legal error that affects a party’s right to present evidence in the proceeding below, a party does not have the right to have a second chance at presenting his or her case before an administrative judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14- 02730 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 24, 2016). Applicant has not demonstrated error below and is not entitled to a hearing just so he can have another opportunity to present his case. 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 E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board