CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03847.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03847.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03847.a1

Oct 5, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A married man in his mid-50s with five children and a military background was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from six delinquent debts totaling approximately $32,000. The applicant attributed these financial difficulties to a child's medical issues and asserted that the debts were no longer owed due to the statute of limitations.

However, the appeal board found insufficient evidence that the applicant had taken responsible action to resolve the debts. The mere absence of these debts from a credit report was not considered proof of satisfactory resolution. Furthermore, the applicant's reliance on the statute of limitations did not mitigate the security concerns raised by the outstanding financial obligations.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions, the applicant's failure to demonstrate proactive and responsible management of the debts led to the denial of his appeal, upholding the initial security clearance denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedMitigating Condition 20(a)The applicant did not demonstrate that the debts were infrequent or unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedMitigating Condition 20(b)The applicant did not show he acted responsibly under the circumstances.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedMitigating Condition 20(c)The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling.

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 issuedFeb 28, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 16, 2020Decision made on written record.
Decision dateOct 5, 2020Appeal decision.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Action Regarding Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of Statute of Limitations on Financial Considerations
Requirements for Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusions reached regarding the applicant's financial situation and responsibilities.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's conclusions and affirmed the decision based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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: We find no error in the Judge’s conclusions. The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful evidence as to the disposition of the debt. Additionally, for Mitigating Condition 20(b) to apply, an applicant must not only experience a circumstance largely beyond his or her control (such as unexpected medical issues) that resulted in the financial problem, but also show he or she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 19-03847.a1 DATE: 10/05/2020

DATE: October 5, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ----------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-03847 ) ) 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 February 28, 2020, 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 July 16, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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 discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Finding of Fact Applicant, who is in his mid-50s, is married with five children. He served in the U.S. military for about four years and received an honorable discharge. With the exception of a one- month period, he has been steadily employed since 2010. He began his current job less than two years ago. The SOR alleged that Applicant had six delinquent debts totaling about $32,000. These debts arose about four to ten years ago. In responding to the SOR, Applicant denied the alleged debts, claiming he was no longer obligated to pay them because the statute of limitations for their collection had expired. Applicant attributed the alleged debts to his child’s serious medical problems. Applicant’s medical insurance did not cover many of the bills. This resulted in him being unable to pay family living expenses and maintain debt payments. Although he contemplated filing bankruptcy, he determined it would be to his benefit to allow the statute of limitation on the debts to expire. He claimed that he paid taxes on some of the cancelled debts but failed to provide documentation corroborating those assertions. Many of the alleged debts are not reflected in a recent credit report. The Judge’s Analysis Applicant’s debts arose from conditions largely beyond his control, but he did not produce evidence to establish that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. The absence of a debt from a credit report does not establish it was satisfactorily resolved. Citing various Appeal Board decisions, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s reliance on the statute of limitations did not mitigate the security concerns arising from the alleged debts.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant challenges some of the Judge’s conclusions by arguing he presented evidence in mitigation. Noting that only one debt continues to appear on his credit report, Applicant asserts that Mitigating Condition 20(a) applied because his alleged debts happened a long time ago, were so infrequent, happened under circumstances unlikely to recur, and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. He also asserts Mitigating Condition 20(b) was established because his debts arose from conditions beyond his control, i.e., his child’s serious medical problems for which he did not have insurance. We find no error in the Judge’s conclusions. The fact that a debt no longer appears on a credit report does not establish any meaningful evidence as to the disposition of the debt. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-00683 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 19, 2018). Additionally, for Mitigating Condition 20(b) to apply, an applicant must not only experience a circumstance largely beyond his or her control (such as unexpected medical issues) that resulted in the financial problem, but also show he or she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(b). In general, Applicant’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, which is not enough to show that the Judge’s analysis was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02239 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 20, 2020). Applicant also cites the Judge’s finding that he did not participate in financial counseling and contends that financial counseling is required for those seeking bankruptcy and, since he did not file bankruptcy, he was being unfairly penalized for failing to seek financial counseling. This contention is not accurate. Mitigating Condition 20(c) is not limited to the credit counseling required to file bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h) and 111. Rather, it provides that Guideline F security concerns may be mitigated by any financial counseling from a legitimate and credible source that is accompanied by clear indications the applicant’s financial problem is being resolved or is resolved. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 20(c). Applicant’s Notice of Appeal included a Certificate of Counseling that post-dated the Judge’s decision. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

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