CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02980.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02980.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02980.a1

Feb 5, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to ongoing and past financial issues. The appeal board affirmed this denial, emphasizing that both recent and historical financial deficiencies are relevant to eligibility.

Specifically, the applicant had overdue federal taxes for 2017 and state taxes for 2014, 2016, and 2017. Additionally, a history of bankruptcy and general financial irresponsibility were cited as significant security concerns. The judge's decision explicitly considered these combined past and present financial deficiencies, rather than dismissing older issues as irrelevant.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19(c), which addresses a history of not meeting financial obligations. The board concluded that the applicant's financial conduct raised sufficient security concerns to warrant the denial of the clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 20, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 13, 2019
Decision dateFeb 5, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Both Past and Recent Financial Issues in Security Clearance Evaluations
Consideration of Non-alleged Financial Deficiencies in Assessing Credibility and Rehabilitation.

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due to financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was based solely on outdated financial issues and challenged the Judge's assessment of his financial progress. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was solely based on dated financial deficiencies.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant challenged the Judge's conclusion regarding the timing of his efforts to resolve financial problems.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was based on both recent and past financial deficiencies, which are relevant to security clearance eligibility. The Board also determined that the Judge properly considered the evidence and did not err in weighing it.

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’s contention that the Judge’s decision was “solely based” on dated financial deficiencies is simply not accurate. The Judge’s adverse findings include recent financial concerns, such as Applicant’s past-due Federal taxes for 2017 and his past-due state taxes for 2014, 2016, and 2017. Also, past and present financial deficiencies are relevant considerations in assessing an applicant’s security clearance eligibility. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02980.a1 DATE: 02/05/2020 DATE: February 5, 2020 In Re: -------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 18-02980

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 20, 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 hearing. On November 13, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR listed 12 allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on six of them. In responding the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation that the Judge found against him. The Judge summarized the case as follows: Applicant has owed federal and/or state income taxes since he filed his tax returns for tax year 2014 in 2016. He made substantial progress on his non-tax debts; however, it was mostly after the statement of reasons (SOR) was issued. In the previous 15 years, he filed bankruptcy twice, had three expensive vehicles repossessed, and short sold his residence. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility access to classified information is denied. [Decision at 1.] Applicant’s appeal brief contains documents and assertions that are not included in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision “was solely based on my financial issues that were 10 to 15 years old.” Appeal Brief at 1. He noted that he was not required to disclose his prior bankruptcy filings on his security clearance application due to their age and stated he “didn’t realize [his] financial history from 10 to 15 years ago would be in question.” Id. These assertions are not persuasive. First, Applicant’s contention that the Judge’s decision was “solely based” on dated financial deficiencies is simply not accurate. The Judge’s adverse findings include recent financial concerns, such as Applicant’s past-due Federal taxes for 2017 and his past-due state taxes for 2014, 2016, and 2017. Second, past and present financial deficiencies are relevant considerations in assessing an applicant’s security clearance eligibility. See, e.g., Disqualifying Condition 19(c), which provides “a history of not meeting financial obligations” could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. Directive, Encl. 2, App. ¶ 19(c). Third, to the extent that Applicant is raising a due process issue, the SOR gave Applicant adequate notice that his prior bankruptcies would be considered in determining his security clearance eligibility. Finally, we note the Judge properly cited to ISCR Case No. 02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004) for the proposition that he could consider certain non-alleged financial deficiencies for limited purposes – such as in assessing an applicant’s credibility; evaluating an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; determining whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; and conducting a whole-person assessment. Applicant has failed to show the Judge erred in his consideration of Applicant’s past financial delinquencies. The balance of Applicant’s argument amounts to a challenge to the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence. For example, he challenges the Judge’s conclusion that he did not take significant steps to resolve his financial problems until the SOR was issued. He argues that the SOR issuance coincided with his efforts to address his financial problems so that his son could qualify for an educational loan. His 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- 07277 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2017). Applicant requests that he be granted a temporary security clearance and then provide him an opportunity to updated his financial status. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error or that he should be granted a conditional security clearance under Directive, Encl. 2, App. C. 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