CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-02756.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-02756.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-02756.a1

deniedNov 4, 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. This decision stemmed from ten delinquent debts totaling approximately $34,300. The applicant attributed these financial difficulties to personal circumstances, specifically divorce and unemployment.

The appeal was denied because the applicant did not challenge any specific findings of fact or conclusions from the initial decision. Furthermore, the explanations provided for the financial issues were deemed insufficient to demonstrate responsible action or to overturn the judge's original conclusions.

Ultimately, the adverse decision regarding the applicant's financial responsibility was affirmed, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not challenge any specific findings of fact or conclusions from the initial decision.
The applicant's explanations for financial issues were insufficient to demonstrate responsible action or to overturn the judge's conclusions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial 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 issuedJan 6, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 12, 2020Decision made by Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman.
Decision dateNov 4, 2020Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Explanations for Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Challenge Specific Findings in an Appeal
Standards 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: In his appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Instead, he provides explanations for his financial problems and argues that those problems were the result of conditions beyond his control and he is taking action to resolve them. His arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-02756.a1 DATE: 11/04/2020 DATE: November 4, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ADP Case No. 19-02756 ) ) 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 January 6, 2020, 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 August 12, 2020, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 ten delinquent debts totaling about $34,300. In answering the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. The Judge found: In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he attributed his delinquent debts to his ongoing divorce and lack of employment. He provided no information about the date on which the divorce proceedings began or the expenses incurred regarding them. He provided no information about his dates of unemployment. He provided no specific information about his income and expenses, and no evidence of financial counseling. . . . In his cover letter for his response to the FORM [File of Relevant Material], he stated, “I am trying to be debt free in about 20 months.” [Decision at 4]. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to show that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on three debts and against him on the others. In his appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact or conclusions. Instead, he provides explanations for his financial problems and argues that those problems were the result of conditions beyond his control and he is taking action to resolve them. His arguments, however, are not sufficient to show that the Judge’s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. 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 standard applicable to trustworthiness cases 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. 19-02087 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2020). 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