CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02074 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02074denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02074

Aug 27, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 33-year-old defense contractor and military veteran was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial and criminal conduct concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to seven delinquent debts, totaling approximately $34,800. Additionally, the applicant had been charged with a DUI and was on probation at the time of the decision.

The appeal board found insufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns. Specifically, there was no adequate demonstration that the delinquent debts were being actively resolved or were under control. The board also considered the applicant's criminal conduct, noting the ongoing probation for the DUI.

Despite the applicant's claims of good character and loyalty, the board emphasized the paramount importance of national security in clearance determinations. The combination of significant unresolved financial obligations and recent criminal conduct led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct

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 issuedJan 11, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 25, 2019Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateAug 27, 2019Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations and criminal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge did not properly consider all evidence and mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline J

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's findings or conclusions.

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 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 has not challenged any of the Judge’s findings of fact. He contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. For example, he argues that he presented proof of his good character, judgment, and trustworthiness and has shown his unwavering loyalty to the United States through his years of Government service while holding a security clearance without any incident. His arguments, however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-02074 DATE: 08/27/2019 DATE: August 27, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-02074 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Mark A. Myers, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 11, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decisionCsecurity concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 25, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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.

JUDGES FINDINGS

Applicant is a 33-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the military on active duty for about three years and in the National Guard for about nine years. He received honorable discharges for his military service. The SOR alleges that Applicant has seven delinquent debts totaling about $34,800. He admitted each of the debts in his SOR response. These were incurred as a result of a failed business venture. He satisfied three of those debts through settlements. He stated that he is slowly working to resolve the others. He owes about $29,900 on the remaining three debts. He also indicated that he recently hired a credit repair company to assist him in resolving them. At this point, insufficient evidence has been presented to show his debts are being resolved or are under control. The SOR also alleges that Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While Having Measurable Blood Alcohol in early 2017. Later that year, he pled guilty to at least one of those offenses. He was placed on probation for three years, which will end in 2020. He has satisfied all other court requirements. Given his recent conviction and ongoing probation, he has failed to mitigate the criminal conduct security concerns.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s findings of fact. He contends that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. For example, he argues that he presented proof of his good character, judgment, and trustworthiness and has shown his unwavering loyalty to the United States through his years of Government service while holding a security clearance without any incident. His arguments, however, are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor are they 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 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited, but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge's decision. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, the Judge complied with the requirements of the Directive in her whole-person analysis by considering the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. Applicant has failed 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 access to 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