CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02018.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02018.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02018.a1

May 11, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 54-year-old defense contractor with a master's degree was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from 35 delinquent debts, 31 of which were student loans. The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action in addressing these financial issues.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not shown responsible financial management. The board also found no violation of due process during the proceedings.

Ultimately, the applicant's extensive history of delinquent debts, particularly the student loans, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedJul 23, 2019
Answer filedAug 23, 2019
Hearing heldMar 2, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom.
Decision dateMay 11, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Due Process Arguments in Security Clearance Appeals
Standards for Granting Security Clearances Related to National Security Interests

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 challenging the denial of his security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no due process violation and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEric H. Borgstrom — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he was denied due process.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no basis to conclude that the Applicant was denied due process and affirmed the Judge's decision based on the record evidence.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-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: Applicant says that he is not asserting that the Judge erred. Rather he is challenging the accuracy and sufficiency of the record evidence. To the extent he is making an argument that he was denied due process, it is unpersuasive on this record. The record shows Applicant was interviewed in 2018, received an SOR and responded to it in 2019, received the File of Relevant Material (FORM) in 2019 and responded to the FORM in 2020. There is no basis to conclude that he was denied due process. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02018.a1 DATE: 05/11/2020 DATE: May 11, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02018 ) 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 July 23, 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 March 2, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Eric H. Borgstrom 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 Applicant was denied due process. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is a 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the military and received an honorable discharge. He has earned a master’s degree. He is divorced and has three children. He attributed his financial problems to a period of leave without pay.

The SOR alleges that Applicant has 35 delinquent debts (of which 31 are student loans). The Judge found against Applicant on 15 of the delinquent debts and in favor of Applicant on the remainder. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to establish that he had acted responsibly under the circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief contains new evidence, which the Board cannot consider on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Applicant says that he is not asserting that the Judge erred. Rather he is challenging the accuracy and sufficiency of the record evidence. To the extent he is making an argument that he was denied due process, it is unpersuasive on this record. The record shows Applicant was interviewed in 2018, received an SOR and responded to it in 2019, received the File of Relevant Material (FORM) in 2019 and responded to the FORM in 2020. There is no basis to conclude that he was denied due process. 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