CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00493.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00493.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00493.a1

Aug 29, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 35-year-old medical professional was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,500. The applicant, who has been married twice and has four children, admitted to these debts and described her financial difficulties.

However, she failed to provide adequate evidence of mitigation. Specifically, she did not submit proof of any payment arrangements for the outstanding debts or documentation detailing her current financial situation.

Consequently, the applicant's arguments were deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption that the Judge had considered all presented evidence. The denial of her security clearance was therefore affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's debts were incurred nearly four years ago but were not sufficiently mitigated.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's arguments regarding conditions beyond her control were insufficient.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant mentioned considering debt management counseling but provided no evidence of it.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Person Has Established a Good Track Record of Debt RepaymentThe applicant did not demonstrate a good track record of debt repayment.

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 13, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 24, 2019Decision made by Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy.
Decision dateAug 29, 2019Appeal decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Mitigation Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Due to Delinquent Debts
Rebuttal of Presumption of Evidence Consideration by the Judge

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 her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that her debts were incurred due to circumstances beyond her control and that the security concerns had been mitigated. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — 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 considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts and the choice made.

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 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 her appeal brief, Applicant explains the reasons for her debts and argues the security concerns arising from them have been mitigated. She argues, for example, her debts were incurred nearly four yeas ago during an isolated period of her life and were the result of conditions beyond her control. Her arguments, however, 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. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 19-00493.a1 DATE: 08/29/2019 DATE: August 29, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00493 ) ) 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 March 13, 2019, 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 July 24, 2019, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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 in her current 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 is 35-year-old medical professional. She has been married twice and has four children. She experienced periods of unemployment. She incurred some delinquent debts during the breakup of her first marriage and others later while living on her own. The SOR alleges that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling about $28,500. She admitted the debts in her SOR response. She has not provided proof of any payment arrangements because she does not want to enter into agreements that she cannot afford. Her husband advises her on how to manage her finances, and she is considering debt management counseling. She hopes to have her debts paid off in five years. Her finances will improve once her youngest child leaves daycare and begins elementary school. Her plan is to pay her debts one-by-one, starting with the smallest and progressing to the next larger. She provided no documentation about the current status of her debts or her current financial situation. Applicant provided insufficient evidence to support application of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.

DISCUSSION

In her appeal brief, Applicant explains the reasons for her debts and argues the security concerns arising from them have been mitigated. She argues, for example, her debts were incurred nearly four yeas ago during an isolated period of her life and were the result of conditions beyond her control. Her arguments, however, 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- 01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017). Applicant also makes some assertions that were not provided to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive E3.1.29. Applicant has failed to show the Judge committed any harmful error. 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 at 528. 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