CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01762.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01762.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01762.a1

Jun 26, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts and a recent bankruptcy discharge. The appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate a sufficient track record of debt payment and the likelihood of persistent financial difficulties.

The board found that the applicant's bankruptcy was too recent to establish a reliable history of debt payment. Furthermore, the applicant did not present adequate evidence to mitigate the financial concerns raised against her.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied because the applicant could not overcome the disqualifying financial conditions with sufficient mitigating evidence or a demonstrated history of responsible financial management.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent bankruptcy discharge did not demonstrate a sufficient track record of debt resolution.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.15.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 18, 2019
Decision dateJun 26, 2019

Cite For

Importance of a Track Record of Debt Payment in Mitigating Financial Concerns
Applicant's Burden to Present Evidence in Mitigation
Recent Bankruptcy Discharge Insufficient for Demonstrating Financial Stability

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that her financial problems were unresolved. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of debt resolution.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated that her problems are resolved.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusion regarding the applicant's financial situation was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not meet her burden of persuasion regarding mitigation.

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

Michael Y. 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: Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated that her problems are resolved. She contends that there is no evidence to show that her financial difficulties will persist. However, it is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s bankruptcy is too recent to establish a track record of debt payment and thereby meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01762.a1 DATE: 06/26/2019 DATE: June 26, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01762

) ) 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 29, 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 April 18, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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 has been employed in low-paying jobs since 2007. Her SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, for vehicle accounts, education loans, medical expenses, utilities, etc. About a month after she answered the SOR, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and most of her debts were discharged in March 2019. Her education loans were not discharged, however, and she has been making small, regular payments on them. She was not successful in having her education debts placed in forbearance. Applicant makes about $425 each pay period. Her character references recommend her for a clearance, although they did not disclose knowledge of her security- significant issues. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s bankruptcy discharge is too recent to establish a track record of debt resolution. Noting her monthly expenditures, he also concluded that she will still have a problem with maintaining financial stability even after bankruptcy. He stated that Applicant’s “whole-person” evidence–for example, her character references–were not sufficient to meet her burden of persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge erred in concluding that she has not demonstrated that her problems are resolved. She contends that there is no evidence to show that her financial difficulties will persist. However, it is an applicant’s job to present evidence in mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In this case, the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s bankruptcy is too recent to establish a track record of debt payment and thereby meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation is sustainable. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015) (Promises to maintain financial good health are not a substitute for a track record of debt payment). See also ISCR Case No. 18- 02250 at 3 (App. Bd. May 23, 2019) (An ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to show that a Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law).

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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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