CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00262.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00262.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00262.a1

Sep 30, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant admitted to six delinquent debts totaling approximately $29,000, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19.

While some payments were made towards certain debts, the judge found that the applicant did not take sufficient steps to resolve three of the outstanding debts. The applicant failed to demonstrate that his financial problems were under control and unlikely to recur.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20, the applicant's inability to resolve the financial issues and demonstrate control over his finances led to the affirmation of the denial based on national security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his financial issues were under control.

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 issuedFeb 15, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 18, 2020
Decision dateSep 30, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Control Over Financial Problems for Security Clearance
Standard for Clearance Decisions Being Consistent with National Security Interests

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 finding no evidence of $800 in payments towards a debt. The Board found the error harmless and affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's ongoing financial issues.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNichole L. Noel — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he provided no proof of making $800 in payments towards an unresolved credit union debt.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant failed to establish any harmful errors.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's error regarding the $800 payment was harmless and did not affect the outcome. The Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial history were supported by substantial evidence.

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: Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he provided no proof of making $800 in payments towards an unresolved credit union debt. The SOR alleged the balance owed on that debt was about $4,400. At the hearing, Applicant provided a statement from a collection agency showing the debt’s balance was about $3,600 as of the end of 2019. Applicant’s Exhibit E. Although the Judge erred in finding the record contained no evidence of the $800 in payments on that debt, it was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00262.a1 DATE: 09/30/2020

DATE: September 30, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00262 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 15, 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 initially requested a decision on the written record, but later requested a hearing. On June 18, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Nichole L. Noel denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $29,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on three of the alleged debts. Applicant settled one of those debts before the hearing and the other two after the hearing. For the remaining three debts, the Judge found against Applicant, concluding he had not taken sufficient steps to resolve them. Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions that are not in the record. The Appeal Board is prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding he provided no proof of making $800 in payments towards an unresolved credit union debt. The SOR alleged the balance owed on that debt was about $4,400. At the hearing, Applicant provided a statement from a collection agency showing the debt’s balance was about $3,600 as of the end of 2019. Applicant’s Exhibit E. Although the Judge erred in finding the record contained no evidence of the $800 in payments on that debt, it was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Regarding one debt (SOR ¶ 1.e), Applicant asserts the Judge “ONLY mentions the $130 paid in 2020.” Appeal Brief at 1. He is incorrect. She noted that Applicant made monthly payments totaling $4,000 towards this debt, but there was a gap in payments between May 2017 and January 2020. Decision at 4. The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts 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). Overall, the record evidence supports the Judge’s conclusions that Applicant has a history of financial problems and has failed to establish those problems are under control and are unlikely to recur. Applicant has failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful errors. 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