CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03174.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03174.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03174.a1

Feb 10, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a long history of financial instability and unresolved debts. The applicant had received Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges in 1996, 2011, and 2019. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), (b), and (c) were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(d), (e), and (f) were applied.

The denial was based on the applicant's consistent pattern of delinquent debts and failure to demonstrate responsible action to resolve her financial issues, including significant student loan debt. The judge determined that the applicant had not established a track record of financial stability.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing an error in the judge's analysis. However, the board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the applicant's lack of proactive steps to address her financial problems. The security clearance was ultimately denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 20(b)notedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFailure to Mitigate Financial Issues

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant's financial issues were not solely due to external factors.
AG ¶ 20(e)notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial Problem
AG ¶ 20(f)rejectedThe Person Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not provide evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Generally, how fact scenarios were adjudicated in other Hearing Office decisions are not a relevant consideration in the Appeal Board’s review of a case.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 16, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 7, 2020
Decision dateFeb 10, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Instability Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Due to Lack of Evidence of Responsible Action
Non-relevance of Other Hearing Office Decisions in Appeal Considerations.

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not properly apply mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowBraden M. Murphy — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant mitigating conditions.

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: Applicant relies on favorable Hearing Office decisions involving bankruptcies to argue the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Generally, how fact scenarios were adjudicated in other Hearing Office decisions are not a relevant consideration in the Appeal Board’s review of a case. On appeal, Hearing Office decisions may be useful to highlight a novel legal principle, but only in rare situations—such as separate cases involving spouses, cohabitants, or partners in which the debts and the financial circumstances surrounding them are the same—would the adjudication outcome in another case have any meaningful relevance in our review of a case. The decisions that Applicant cites do not fall into that category. They have no direct relationship or unique link to Applicant’s case that would make them pertinent here. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 19-03174.a1 DATE: 02/10/2021 DATE: February 10, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-03174 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Joseph D. Jordan, Esq.

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 16, 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 hearing. On December 7, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Braden M. Murphy 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 has worked for Federal contractors since the early 1990s. She has a long history of delinquent debts and financial instability. She received Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges in 1996, 2011, and 2019. Over the years, Applicant experienced layoffs when her employers lost contracts. She also had a difficult marriage that impacted her finances. She funded higher education for herself and her two children and “has long had several hundred thousand dollars in unresolved student loan debt that she has never put forth a serious effort to pay. She knows these debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, yet she provides no evidence of responsible action to resolve them. She also has a history of buying expensive cars that she cannot afford.” [Decision at 6.] “Given her history, Applicant has not acted responsibly in attempting to improve her finances, and has not established enough of a track record of financial stability and payments towards her debts.” [Decision at 1.] Applicant failed to mitigate the Guideline F security concerns.

DISCUSSION

In her appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Rather, she contends the Judge failed to adhere to Executive Order 10865 and the Directive by not considering all of the record evidence and by not properly applying the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. She asserts that the Judge did not “properly identify” or apply Mitigating Conditions 20(a), 20(b), and 20(c). Appeal Brief at 7. The Judge, however, individually addressed each of those mitigating conditions. Decision at 6. We find no error in his analysis of those conditions. Applicant also asserts that the Judge did not give proper weight to the financial impacts arising from her periods of unemployment, her former marriage, and her efforts to finance her children’s education. The arguments raised in the appeal brief are neither sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record nor enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01495 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 30, 2020). Additionally, Applicant relies on favorable Hearing Office decisions involving bankruptcies

to argue the Judge erred in his analysis of this case. Generally, how fact scenarios were adjudicated in other Hearing Office decisions are not a relevant consideration in the Appeal Board’s review of a case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-03344 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Dec. 21, 2020). On appeal, Hearing Office decisions may be useful to highlight a novel legal principle, but only in rare situations—such as separate cases involving spouses, cohabitants, or partners in which the debts and the financial circumstancessurrounding themare the same—would the adjudicationoutcome inanother casehave any meaningful relevance in our review of a case. The decisions that Applicant cites do not fall into that category. They have no direct relationship or unique link to Applicant’s case that would make them pertinent here. Applicant has failed to establish any harmful error below. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable.

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