CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02020.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02020.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02020.a1

Oct 26, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant, representing himself, faced concerns stemming from 24 delinquent debts totaling over $1,000,000 and two DUI arrests.

While the applicant claimed his financial difficulties arose from a business failure and presented some evidence of efforts to resolve his debts, the judges found this insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide adequate substantiation for his claims of financial hardship.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, affirming the original decision. The judges emphasized that any doubts regarding an applicant's national security eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 22raisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient plan to repay his debts.
AG ¶ 21appliedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant provided substantial evidence to mitigate the alcohol-related concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 18, 2020
Decision dateOct 26, 2020Appeal decision affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Obligations on Security Clearance Eligibility
Rebuttable Presumption Favoring National Security Interests 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to financial issues and alcohol consumption. The applicant argued that he had mitigated the security concerns but the Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that he provided sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns arising from his debts.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Administrative Judge did not commit any harmful errors and that the decision was sustainable on the record. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, and the evidence did not support a different conclusion.

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; Guideline G DIGEST: In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that his financial problems arose from a business failure and highlights his efforts to resolve the alleged debts. He argues that he has provided sufficient evidence to mitigate any security concerns arising from his debts. In essence, he is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02020.a1 DATE: 10/26/2020

DATE: October 26, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02020 ) ) 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 December 13, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 18, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge summarized the case as follows: The original SOR alleges that Applicant has 24 delinquent debts totaling over $1,000,000. Department Counsel amended the SOR by adding two additional debts totaling about $50,000. The SOR also alleges Applicant was twice arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol within a nine-month period in 2014 and 2015. Applicant provided substantial evidence to mitigate the Guideline G security concerns alleged in the SOR, but he provided insufficient mitigation evidence regarding the Guideline F allegations. Accordingly, national security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. [Decision at 1.] In his analysis, the Judge noted that, even though Applicant expressed a commitment to pay all of his debts, he had limited financial resources due to his large child support obligations and failed to meet his burden to submit evidence demonstrating his plans to repay numerous delinquent debts.

In his appeal brief, Applicant notes that his financial problems arose from a business failure and highlights his efforts to resolve the alleged debts. He argues that he has provided sufficient evidence to mitigate any security concerns arising from his debts. In essence, he is advocating for an alternative weighing of the evidence. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 27, 2016). Applicant also notes that the adverse decision resulted in the lose of his job. 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). 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