Loading case…

ISCR 20-03208.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2021) · CASE

ISCR Case 20-03208.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03208.a1

Jul 6, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to delinquent student loans. The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting that the loans were delinquent by 2017, predating the President's Covid-19 relief measures.

Disqualifying conditions F.3.a and F.3.c were raised, as the applicant failed to demonstrate a consistent track record of debt payment or provide adequate reasons for the delinquency. The applicant, representing herself, did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate these financial concerns.

Ultimately, the appeal board found no indication that the judge's decision to deny the clearance was arbitrary or capricious, leading to the final denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.3.craisedDelinquent Debts

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 issuedDec 7, 2020
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 20, 2021
Decision dateJul 6, 2021

Cite for

Affirmation of Adverse Decision Based on Delinquent Student Loans Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations

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 filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F related to delinquent student loans. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious, but the Board affirmed the decision, finding that the Judge had properly considered the evidence and that the applicant's financial issues predated the COVID-19 relief measures.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley 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 decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly considered the evidence and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the security clearance based on the applicant's financial history.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. 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 notes that one of her documents cites to the President’s decision to hold student loan payments in abeyance as a Covid 19 emergency relief measure. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has Applicant shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge found that Applicant’s student loans became delinquent by 2017, several years prior to the President’s issuance. The Judge properly considered Applicant’s financial history. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-03208.a1 DATE: 07/06/2021 DATE: July 6, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-03208 ) ) 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 December 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 decision on the written record. On April 20, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s SOR alleges four delinquent student loan debts. The Judge entered adverse findings for each allegation. He stated that Applicant did not present sufficient evidence regarding the reasons her loans went into delinquency, nor did she demonstrate a track record of debt payment. Applicant contends on appeal that she submitted documents that the Judge did not receive. She attached these documents to her brief. Although we cannot consider new evidence, we will consider such matters insofar as they bear upon threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-01764 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2019). In this case, the documents that Applicant has attached to her brief are, in fact, included in the record. Applicant has presented no reason to believe that she was denied an opportunity to present evidence. Applicant notes that one of her documents cites to the President’s decision to hold student loan payments in abeyance as a Covid 19 emergency relief measure. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record, nor has Applicant shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02872 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 15, 2020). The Judge found that Applicant’s student loans became delinquent by 2017, several years prior to the President’s issuance. The Judge properly considered Applicant’s financial history. Cf. ISCR case No. 20-01527 at 2 (App. Bd Jun. 7, 2021). Applicant states that her career aspirations may be impaired if she does not have a clearance. The Directive does not permit us to consider the impact of an adverse decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearlyconsistent 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 Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. 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