CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-03450 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-03450denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-03450

Oct 18, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance was denied for an applicant, a man in his thirties with a minor child, under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from eight admitted delinquent debts totaling over $36,400.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial situation remained ongoing and not under control, despite some efforts to resolve the debts. These efforts were characterized as "too little, too late." Consequently, the judge found that the disqualifying condition F.1 was applicable.

The appeal affirmed the judge's findings, concluding that the decision to deny the security clearance was sustainable based on the record.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 9, 2021
Decision dateOct 18, 2021

Cite For

Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Counseling
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Stability

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in his findings and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful errors that would affect the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in his findings of fact and that the adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that any error regarding the year of the car repossession was harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case. The Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

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

_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

------------------------ )

ISCR Case No. 19-03450

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Even though the Judge may have erred in his finding about the year of the car repossession, it was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. Adverse Decision is Affirmed. CASE No: 19-03450 DATE: 10/18/2021 Date: October 18, 2021

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 January 30, 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 hearing. On July 9, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his findings of fact and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant is in his thirties, is unmarried with a minor child, and has earned a bachelor’s degree. He began working for a Federal contractor in 2018. His supervisors describe him as honest, forthcoming, dependable, and responsible. The SOR alleged that Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling over $36,400. In responding to the SOR, he admitted each allegation. He experienced conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial problems, such as raising a child while attending college, helping his mother financially, and short periods of unemployment, but he did not act reasonably under circumstances. In early 2021, he entered into a five-month contract with a debt relief company to negotiate settlements with creditors. The company advised him to pay the smaller debts first as he worked his way up to the larger ones. Following that advice, he resolved two of the debts totaling nearly $4,000 after the SOR was issued, but the other debts remained unresolved. The unresolved debts include the balance owed on a repossessed car, credit card delinquencies, and student loans. Only after the hearing did he initiate action to rehabilitate the student loans. With the exception of his contract with the debt relief company, he presented no evidence that he received financial counseling. His indebtedness is recent, ongoing, and not under control. His actions to resolve the debts are “too little, too late.” Decision at 6.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends the Judge erred in finding the car repossession occurred in 2018. Applicant asserts the car was repossessed in 2016. Credit reports reflect that the last activity on this debt occurred in either 2016 or 2018. Government Exhibit (GE) 3 at 2, GE 4 at 1, and GE 5 at 4. In his background interview, Applicant reportedly stated the car was repossessed in 2016. GE 2 at 5. Even though the Judge may have erred in his finding about the year of the car repossession, it was a harmless error because it did not likely affect the outcome of the case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 1, 2020). Applicant’s remaining arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence. He argues, for example, that his debts are old and he is now in a better financial position that permits him to focus on resolving them. Additionally, he highlights the conditions beyond his control that contributed to his financial problems, points out that his debt relief contract was the only form of evidence he had of financial counseling, and emphasizes his good security

record. None of his arguments are sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02592 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2021). Applicant also notes that loss of a security clearance may affect his employment, but the Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). 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.

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