CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00909.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00909.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00909.a1

Feb 3, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to substantial evidence of financial irresponsibility. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $19,000.

While the applicant presented arguments regarding improved financial circumstances, these were not found persuasive. The board determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his financial problems were unlikely to recur, thus not satisfying mitigating conditions F.2 or F.3.

Consequently, the disqualifying condition F.3, related to a history of not meeting financial obligations, remained unmitigated. The appeal board concluded that the evidence supported the initial decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his financial problems were unlikely to recur.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemThe applicant's claims of starting a debt relief program were insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

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 issuedApr 9, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 18, 2019
Decision dateFeb 3, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Recovery as a Basis for Security Clearance
Importance of National Security Considerations 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 involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant contested the finding that he left his job voluntarily. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, concluding that the findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not establish any harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding that he left his job voluntarily.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

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: Based on our review of the record, we conclude the Judge’s material findings and conclusions that Applicant’s decision to leave the job in question was voluntary are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00909.a1 DATE: 02/03/2020

DATE: February 3, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00909 ) ) 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 April 9, 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 18, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR listed ten allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on seven delinquent debts totaling about $19,000. The Judge concluded that Applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances and failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that his financial problems are unlikely to recur. In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges the Judge’s findings and conclusions that he left a job voluntarily in 2014. He states that he was working on a contract that was supposed to continue but ended abruptly. He argues the Judge’s purported error weighed heavily in his decision. We examine a Judge’s findings to see if they are supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02145 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2018). In his background interview, Applicant stated that his financial problems began in 2013 because of debts from his wedding, moving from State A to State B, two months of unemployment, a pay cut of $40,000 due to the move, and expenses related to his children. Government Exhibit (GE) 3 at 2. In his security clearance application, Applicant listed his reason for leaving the job in question as: “Looked for a job in [State B]. Didn’t want to stay in [State A] anymore.” GE 1 at 16. At the hearing, Applicant testified as follows:

[Applicant]: . . . I ended up having a really great position with that company and it just didn’t work out between me and the existing personnel, so I took a position here in [State B]. We moved out here, but it was about 40 or so thousand difference in pay, so I took a pretty big hit coming out here because at the time -- [Tr. at 19-20.] * * * [Department Counsel]: And when you moved out, made a decision to move, did you ever consider how it affected your finance? Because I believe you said like you [took] a $40,000 hit? [Applicant]: I did. It was -- it was rough, and I knew it was going to affect finances, but again, you know, I was like I’ll get out there. I’ll get my foot in the door, and then I’ll get a position. [Department Counsel]: And what was the reason besides -- what was the reason behind the move? [Applicant]: The move, it clearly was work related. [Department Counsel]: Did you have a job out here you were taking? [Applicant]: Right, exactly. [Department Counsel]: Okay. [Applicant]: It was -- I had the current position, the contract was kind of failing through, it was getting a little scary, so I was like all right, I need to make a move, and I had to get out of [State A]. I just didn’t care for it all that much. [Department Counsel]: And I live not too far from where you’re saying, [location], I would imagine, is a lot more expensive than where you are here, [State B]? [Applicant]: Yeah, very, very much so. [Department Counsel]: Okay. I have no further questions. [Tr. at 43-44.] Based on our review of the record, we conclude the Judge’s material findings and conclusions that Applicant’s decision to leave the job in question was voluntary are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-02225 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2019). The balance of Applicant’s arguments amounts to a disagreement with the way in which the Judge weighed the evidence. He argues, for example, that his financial situation has greatly improved, he is living within his means, and he is paying his delinquent debts. He also notes that he started a debt relief program before the security clearance proceeding began. 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. 17-03978 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Mar. 6, 2019). Applicant has failed to establish that 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 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