CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02487.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02487.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02487.a1

deniedJun 15, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to trustworthiness concerns. The denial stemmed from 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000, which raised a disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 20(a).

Despite admitting to the debts and presenting evidence of participation in a debt resolution program, the judge determined that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied to the applicant's situation. The appeal board subsequently upheld this decision, finding that the judge had adequately considered all presented evidence.

Consequently, the applicant's appeal was denied, and the initial decision to deny trustworthiness was sustained.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $24,000.
The judge found that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied despite the applicant's participation in a debt resolution program.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedOct 3, 2019
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 11, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.
Decision dateJun 15, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Financial Issues
Consideration of Evidence in Debt Resolution Programs
Standard for Trustworthiness Determinations Consistent with 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.

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: The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $24,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. In doing so, the Judge noted Applicant obtained the assistance of a debt relief company (DRC) in late 2019 and began making biweekly payments under the DRC plan. The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02487.a1 DATE: 06/15/2020 DATE: June 15, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-02487

) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) )

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 trustworthiness designation. On October 3, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness 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 11, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling about $24,000. In responding to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the allegations. In doing so, the Judge noted Applicant obtained the assistance of a debt relief company (DRC) in late 2019 and began making biweekly payments under the DRC plan. The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied. In his appeal brief, Applicant contends that the Judge did not see the evidence he submitted showing he was currently in a debt resolution program. Applicant states, “I believe if this evidence was seen the judgment may have been more favorable. With this appeal I hope the judge is able to see I am doing all I can with the issue as quickly as possible.” Appeal Brief at 1. The Judge’s Decision, however, reveals he considered the evidence that Applicant submitted regarding his debt resolution program, which the Judge called “DRC.” He discussed the DRC at some length in his decision. Applicant’s arguments are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 18-00166 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2018).

Applicant has not identified any harmful error in the Judge’s decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “. . . may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 17-03252 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2018). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

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