CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00615.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00615.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00615.a1

Jun 7, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant admitted to eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $38,500.

While the applicant claimed progress in resolving these debts, the Judge found that each alleged debt remained unresolved and unmitigated. The applicant failed to provide corroborating documentation to support their claims of efforts to resolve the debts.

Consequently, the Appeal Board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, emphasizing the lack of documentation to mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable decision.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant's claims of progress were not supported by corroborating documentation.

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 issuedMay 18, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 23, 2021
Decision dateJun 7, 2021

Cite For

Affirmation of the Necessity for Corroborating Documentation in Financial Matters
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Lack of Evidence
Emphasis on the General Standard for Granting Security Clearances in Relation to 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.

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's conclusions were flawed and that he had made progress in addressing his debts. The Board affirmed the denial, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's decision-making process.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowDarlene D. LokeyAnderson — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not properly weigh the evidence regarding his financial situation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious.
No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantNot reached
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant failed to provide corroborating documentation for his claims of progress in resolving debts. The Board affirmed the decision as sustainable on the record.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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 does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, he challenges the Judge’s conclusions and her weighing of the evidence. For example, he claims that he has made significant progress in paying off his indebtedness. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide documentation corroborating his efforts to resolve the debts. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for a Judge to expect that an applicant should present corroborating documentation of actions taken to resolve debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00615.a1 DATE: 06/07/2021 DATE: June 7, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-00615 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT David Johnson, Esq.

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On May 18, 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 March 23, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Darlene D. LokeyAnderson denied Applicant’s request for a securityclearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had nine delinquent debts totaling about $38,500. Applicant admitted eight of those allegations. The Judge found each alleged debt remained unresolved and noted Applicant expressed a willingness to payoff the debts but did not provide documentation showing he had resolved any of them. The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate the alleged security concerns. Applicant asks “the Appeal Board members use their independence to render a fair and impartial decision of granting my security clearance.” Appeal Brief at 1. Applicant is correct that, under Directive ¶ 5.2.13, we are provided with independence to render fair and impartial decisions. However, we have limited authority. As set forth in Directive ¶ E3.1.32, our scope of review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties to determine whether the Judge committed harmful error in his or her decision. We do not review cases de novo. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. Instead, he challenges the Judge’s conclusions and her weighing of the evidence. For example, he claims that he has made significant progress in paying off his indebtedness. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide documentation corroborating his efforts to resolve the debts. As the Appeal Board has previously stated, it is reasonable for a Judge to expect that an applicant should present corroborating documentation of actions taken to resolve debts. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01599 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). Applicant also argues that the Judge did not properly apply the whole-person concept. He notes, for instance, that his debt is decreasing, that the debts arose because of a divorce, that he ignored the debts because he did not want to think about the divorce, that he is a valued and trusted employee, that he has no personal conduct issues, and that he has never had any issues involving his access to classified information. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01431 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 31, 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. “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