CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01525.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01525.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01525.a1

Mar 31, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee in her 60s was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to 20 delinquent debts totaling approximately $50,000. The appeal board affirmed the denial, finding that the applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial history.

The primary disqualifying condition was the significant number and amount of outstanding debts. Although the applicant claimed to have resolved these debts, she did not provide adequate documentary evidence to corroborate her assertions. The judge specifically noted that a spreadsheet of financial transactions submitted by the applicant was insufficient to demonstrate debt resolution.

Consequently, the mitigating conditions under Guideline F were not met. The lack of verifiable evidence regarding debt resolution led to the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims about resolving debts were not supported by sufficient evidence.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Federal Government is not required to wait until an applicant has mishandled or failed to safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke the applicant’s access to such information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 7, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 30, 2019Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales.
Decision dateMar 31, 2020Appeal affirmed by the board.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Government's Authority to Deny Clearance Based on Conduct Raising Security Concerns
Rejection of Uncorroborated Claims Regarding Debt Resolution

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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the evidence supported the denial.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — 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 no harmful error in the Judge's decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

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 argues that she is not a security threat. In this regard, we note that the Federal Government is not required to wait until an applicant has mishandled or failed to safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke the applicant’s access to such information. Even if an applicant has never engaged in a security violation, the Government still can consider whether an applicant’s conduct or circumstances raise security concerns. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01525.a1 DATE: 03/31/2020 DATE: March 31, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01525

) ) 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 7, 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 30, 2019, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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 on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant, who is in her 60s, is an employee of a defense contractor. She has earned a master’s degree. She is divorced with children. She was granted a security clearance in the 1990s. With the exception of occupying a two-month temporary position, she was unemployed for over a year in 2013-2014. Her unemployment was impacted by a Government sequestration and shutdown. She “attributed her financial problems to being a single mother; living in a one-income household; her period of unemployment, her father’s illness and death . . . ; her son’s college needs, and her daughter was almost ready to attend college.” Decision at 3.

The SOR alleges that Applicant has 20 delinquent debts totaling about $50,000. Applicant asserted that she either paid, is paying, or will soon start paying the delinquent debts. In her SOR Response, Applicant provided a spreadsheet that appeared to reflect numerous financial transactions between June 2016 and February 2018. She claimed that she engaged a company to assist her in resolving the debts but that relationship ended in February 2017. The Judge indicated that the “spreadsheet is essentially useless.” Decision at 5. He noted that, without any comments or explanations from Applicant, it is nearly impossible to determine if any of the alleged accounts were resolved or were being resolved. Applicant also disputed, failed to address, or provided no information regarding some debts. In general, her contentions about the debts were not corroborated by documentary evidence. A Government exhibit, however, reflected that three of the alleged accounts were resolved. A senior management official at her company praised Applicant’s work ethic and expertise. This official and others also lauded her character and judgment. Applicant incurred delinquent debts “and essentially ignored them until July 2015.” Decision at 9. The efforts that she and a debt resolution company took to settle the debts between July 2015 and February 2017 are unclear. Her efforts after that point are also unclear. There is little documentary evidence to show Applicant’s delinquent debts have been addressed. Absent corroboration, her claims about the actions she has taken are insufficient to mitigate the resulting security concerns. She also indicated that she intends to resolve the remaining debts but failed to provide supporting documentation. Overall, the evidence leaves doubts about her eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief contains assertions and documents that are not contained in the record. Based on that new evidence, she argues various debts have been resolved or are being resolved. However, we are prohibited from considering new evidence in reviewing appeals. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her appeal brief, Applicant argues that she is not a security threat. In this regard, we note that the Federal Government is not required to wait until an applicant has mishandled or failed to safeguard classified information before it can deny or revoke the applicant’s access to such information. Even if an applicant has never engaged in a security violation, the Government still can consider whether an applicant’s conduct or circumstances raise security concerns. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-06266 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 23, 2002). Applicant’s remaining arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. For example, she argues that she has strived to pay all of her debts in a timely manner. Her arguments, however, are not 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. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2017). Applicant’s appeal brief 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