CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01386.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-01386.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-01386.a1

Jul 13, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 14 delinquent debts. These financial issues were attributed by the applicant to a divorce.

Despite the applicant's assertions of an improved financial status and regular payments, the Judge determined that most of the delinquencies remained unaddressed. The Board upheld this decision, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently resolved the outstanding financial concerns.

Consequently, the presence of these unresolved debts raised doubts about the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, leading to the denial. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) were considered but ultimately deemed insufficient to overcome the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant had not incurred additional delinquent debts since 2019 but still had unresolved debts.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay DebtsThe applicant's claims of regular payments and improved financial status were deemed insufficient.

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 issuedOct 7, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself.
Hearing heldApr 13, 2021
Decision dateJul 13, 2021Decision affirmed on appeal.

Cite For

Upholding Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related 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 decision was incorrect and requested a review of the financial situation. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful errors in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's decision was incorrect and requests reconsideration.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful errors in the Judge's decision and affirmed the denial of the security clearance based on the evidence presented.

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 asks the Board to investigate the cause of his financial situation and to reconsider the Judge’s decision. The Board does not review a case de novo. In other words, we do not take a fresh, new look at the evidence to determine whether or not a security clearance should be granted or continued. Our review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties regarding the proceedings below, including the Judge’s decision. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We only reverse or remand a Judge’s decision to correct a harmful error that a party has identified. Directive ¶¶ E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-01386.a1 DATE: 07/13/2021 DATE: July 13, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ) ------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-01386 ) ) 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 October 7, 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 April 13, 2021, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Richard A. Cefola denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The SOR alleged that Applicant had 14 delinquent debts. In his analysis of the evidence, the Judge noted that Applicant attributed his financial problems to a divorce and, while his financial situation has improved, he has not yet addressed most of his delinquencies. The Judge concluded that the record evidence left him with doubts as to Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. In his appeal brief, Applicant asserts that he paid debts owed to a particular collection agency and paid a Federal tax debt for a particular year. The Judge, however, found in favor of Applicant on those debts. Applicant also contends that he is making regular payments to the IRS for his remaining tax debt, that his credit reports reflect that he has significantly lowered his indebtedness in recent years, that he has not incurred any additional delinquent debts since 2019, and that a costly divorce and the raising of his children are the reasons for his financial problems. His arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or enough to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-04856 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). Applicant asks the Board to investigate the cause of his financial situation and to reconsider the Judge’s decision. The Board does not review a case de novo. In other words, we do not take a fresh, new look at the evidence to determine whether or not a security clearance should be granted or continued. Our review is limited to addressing material issues raised by the parties regarding the proceedings below, including the Judge’s decision. Directive ¶ E3.1.32. We only reverse or remand a Judge’s decision to correct a harmful error that a party has identified. Directive ¶¶ E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3. 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