CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-00990.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-00990.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-00990.a1

Mar 17, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The denial was based on eleven delinquent debts totaling over $40,000, which raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition F.3.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence of payments made or the bases for her disputes regarding the debts. While the applicant provided financial assistance to others, this did not mitigate the concerns about her own outstanding financial obligations.

Ultimately, the board found insufficient evidence of responsible action to address the debts or demonstrate a path toward their resolution, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 14, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself (pro se) in the proceedings.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateMar 17, 2020Appeal affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Under Guideline F Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Circumstances
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Action in Addressing Debts

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusion.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowGina L. Marine — 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 in the record and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The adverse decision was sustainable on the record.

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 Y. 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 cites to information contained in her Answer to the SOR and in her Response to the File of Relevant Material. She notes, for example, evidence that she had acquired some of her debts in an effort to assist others, that she believed that an auto debt had been resolved through foreclosure, that one of her debts was being resolved through garnishment, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-00990.a1 DATE: 03/17/2020 DATE: March 17, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-00990

) ) 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 June 14, 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 December 17, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Gina L. Marine denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed in accordance with 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. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR alleged eleven delinquent debts, totaling over $40,000. Applicant attributed her financial problems to periods of unemployment, as well as to her having acquired debts on behalf of others who did not follow through on their promises to pay. Applicant claimed to be making payments on some of her debts, and she disputed others. However, she did not provide corroborating evidence of actual payments made or of the bases for her disputes. One of her debts, an automobile account, has been the subject of a garnishment action. Applicant enlisted the services of a company to assist her in getting items removed from her credit report. However, she did not provide evidence as to how much of her $88 monthly fee went to satisfying or challenging her debts. In August 2019, Applicant reported a monthly remainder of nearly $1,300, although she stated that unidentified expenses rendered her salary insufficient to address her ongoing debts. Applicant’s plan for addressing her debts includes making unspecified payments to creditors, as well as maintaining full employment and obtaining a part-time job. This plan is on hold, however, because her creditors have asked for good-faith deposits in amounts larger that she can afford. Applicant acknowledges that she has exercised poor judgment with regard to her finances. She states that she has learned her lesson about acquiring debt on behalf of others, and she avers that she is now more mature and understands the importance of a good credit history to maintaining a clearance and holding a job. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that the company Applicant hired has not demonstrated any success in resolving her financial problems. Even those debts removed from her credit report were not demonstrated to have been baseless. She stated that Applicant has a substantial amount of lingering debt and that Applicant has not demonstrated responsible action in regard to her financial problems. The Judge concluded that Applicant has not fully resolved any of her SOR allegations, nor has she demonstrated a meaningful track record of voluntary payment to her creditors.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief includes assertions and attachments from outside the record, including documents that post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to information contained in her Answer to the SOR and in her Response to the File of Relevant Material. She notes, for example, evidence that she had acquired some of her debts in an effort to assist others, that she believed that an auto debt had been resolved through foreclosure, that one of her debts was being resolved through garnishment, etc. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). To the extent that she is challenging the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, we conclude that she has not demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02581 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 14, 2020). 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, 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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