CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01572.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01572.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01572.a1

Nov 18, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 11 delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,500. The applicant admitted to these debts, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20(a).

Despite the applicant's promise to make payments, the appeal board affirmed the denial. The board found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial problems.

Specifically, the applicant's arguments were deemed insufficient to challenge the judge's initial findings. Although mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) were considered, they were not applied due to the lack of adequate evidence, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's promise to continue making payments on his debts was not sufficient to mitigate the 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 issuedJun 21, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldAug 26, 2020
Decision dateNov 18, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Denial Based on Admitted Delinquent Debts
Impact of Personal Circumstances Not Considered in Clearance Decisions

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 did not challenge any specific findings of fact but argued his contributions to the nation and his commitment to repay debts. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not challenge any specific findings of fact.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Applicant did not establish any harmful errors 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 reviewProcedural complianceNo 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 does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, he highlights his contributions to our nation though his military service and as a defense contractor, notes he will continue to make payments on the debts until they are resolved, and asserts he is not a security threat. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not enough to show the Judge’s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01572.a1 DATE: 11/18/2020

DATE: November 18, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ) ---------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01572 ) ) 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 21, 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 August 26, 2020, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 11 delinquent debts totaling about $18,500. Applicant admitted the SOR allegations with an explanation. The Judge concluded the evidence that Applicant presented was not sufficient to fully mitigate the security concerns stemming from his history of financial problems and found against him on all of the SOR allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, he highlights his contributions to our nation though his military service and as a defense contractor, notes he will continue to make payments on the debts until they are resolved, and asserts he is not a security threat. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not enough to show the Judge’s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. He also notes that the loss of his security clearance will have negative repercussions on him and his family; however, the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). Further, Applicant requests a year to continue to demonstrate his commitment to repay his delinquent debts. Based on our review of the record, Applicant has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines is merited. 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