CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01869.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01869.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01869.a1

Feb 7, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial delinquencies. The applicant admitted to seven delinquent debts totaling approximately $29,000.

The judge determined that the applicant had a long history of financial problems and did not adequately demonstrate that future financial issues were unlikely. The appeal board affirmed this denial, specifically noting that two significant debts remained unaddressed.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by Disqualifying Condition F.3, 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 26, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldDec 9, 2019
Decision dateFeb 7, 2020Appeal decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Addressing Delinquent Debts in Security Clearance Cases
Harmless Error Doctrine in the Context of Financial Miscalculations

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge miscalculated the amount of two debts and failed to recognize his efforts to address them through a credit consulting service. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — 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 that the Judge miscalculated the combined amount of two unaddressed debts.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge erred in failing to find that he was addressing the two debts through a credit consulting service.

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 miscalculation of the debt amount was harmless and did not affect the outcome. The Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial delinquencies were supported by substantial evidence.

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 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: In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge miscalculated the combined amount of the two unaddressed debts, noting the Judge stated in his analysis that Applicant “has yet to address two past-due debts totaling over $20,000.” Applicant’s background interview indicates those two debts were delinquent in amounts totaling well over $20,000. However, his most recent credit report reflects that the combined amount of the two debts is nearly $18,000. Even though the Judge may have miscalculated the combined amount of these debts, this error was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01869.a1 DATE: 02/07/2020

DATE: February 7, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01869 ) ) 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 26, 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 December 9, 2019, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola 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 seven delinquent debts totaling about $29,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on five of those debts and against him on two of them. The Judge concluded that Applicant has a long history of financial delinquencies and has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that Judge miscalculated the combined amount of the two unaddressed debts, noting the Judge stated in his analysis that Applicant “has yet to address two past-due debts totaling over $20,000.” Appeal Brief at 1, quoting from Decision at 5. Applicant’s background interview indicates those two debts were delinquent in amounts totaling well over $20,000. Government Exhibit (GE) 2. However, his most recent credit report reflects that the combined amount of the two debts is nearly $18,000. GE 4. Even though the Judge may have miscalculated the combined amount of these debts, this error was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2013). Applicant also contends that the Judge erred in failing to find that he was addressing those two debts through a credit consulting service. In this regard, Applicant also stated, “I do understand if there was some confusion regarding that contract, due to the fact that those line items the judge is referring to are not named, but the company had yet to investigate the problematic items on my credit reports, therefor could not preemptively name them on said contract.” Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant submitted the credit consulting service agreement in his post-hearing submission on September 17, 2019. Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A. Applicant had signed the agreement on September 13, 2019. The agreement provides for the consulting service to review a customer’s credit reports and dispute inaccurate information in them. The agreement does not identify specific debts that will be disputed. In a separate post-hearing letter, Applicant indicated that the consulting service will be assisting him “with the wrongful debt” involving the two companies in question. AE B. As noted above, Applicant admitted those debts when he responded to the SOR. At the hearing, he testified that these were business debts that were opened in his name. From our review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has not yet addressed those two debts. 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