CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02451.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02451.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02451.a1

May 20, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $29,000 in delinquent debts. These debts had been ongoing since late 2016, triggering Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20(a).

The denial was affirmed by the appeal board, which found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence of her efforts to resolve these debts. Additionally, her claims of financial hardship were not substantiated with supporting documentation.

A key factor in the decision was that the applicant's bankruptcy filing occurred after the Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued, further indicating a lack of timely and effective debt resolution. The board emphasized that national security considerations are paramount in clearance determinations, leading to the denial of her application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedAug 28, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 4, 2020
Decision dateMay 20, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Denial
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis and conclusions.

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 contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded that the Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all evidence and did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious. The decision was affirmed based on the record and the absence of harmful error.

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 Y. 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: After considering Applicant’s brief in light of the entirety of the record, we conclude that Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed CASE NO: 19-02451.a1 DATE: 05/20/2020 DATE: May 20, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-02451

) ) 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 August 28, 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 4, 2020, 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, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s SOR alleged over $29,000 in delinquent debt, for such things as credit cards, cable services, a loan, a charge account, and other unspecified obligations. Applicant attributed her problems to several periods of unemployment, some of them voluntary, others not; to expenses incurred while administering the estate of her deceased brother; to her taking advantage of increased limits on her credit cards; and to her providing financial assistance for family members. The Judge found that Applicant’s debts have been ongoing since late 2016 and that she did not corroborate her claims that she had been trying to resolve them. The Judge also noted her ex-husband had child support arrearages as high as $200,000. Applicant filed for bankruptcy protection after her receipt of the SOR. In her clearance interview, she initially claimed that all of her accounts had been paid in full. When the investigator confronted Applicant with her debts, however, she stated that she was not aware of them, though eventually admitting that she had stopped paying them after the death of her brother. In the analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge cited Applicant’s many instances of leaving jobs voluntarily, the absence of evidence of debt resolution, the timing of Applicant’s bankruptcy petition, her having spent funds on family members rather than on paying her debts; and her having taken Carribean cruises rather than satisfying her financial obligations. He concluded that she had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation.

DISCUSSION

In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that she has tried to resolve her debts and that the Judge’s decision does not give due attention to her positive character traits. In presenting her arguments, she includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. We note that Applicant’s response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM) includes a document from one of the creditors cited in the SOR, advising that an automobile lien had been released. Applicant FORM Response, Exhibit 8. This document does not appear to relate to any of the SOR allegations regarding this creditor, however. Item 5, Credit Report dated April 17, 2019, at 8 at top, 5 at bottom of page. After considering Applicant’s brief in light of the entirety of the record, we conclude that Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). Applicant has cited to no harmful error in the Judge’s findings or analysis. 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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