Loading case…

ISCR 20-03247.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2021) · CASE

ISCR Case 20-03247.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03247.a1

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

Summary

This case involves a married male in his forties with prior military service and a history of holding a security clearance, whose application was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced concerns due to eight unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,900.

The applicant admitted to these debts, which raised Disqualifying Condition F.3. While Mitigating Condition F.2 was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The judge determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditors.

Furthermore, the applicant's job loss, which he cited as a contributing factor to his financial difficulties, was found to be a result of violating company policies rather than circumstances beyond his control. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied, and this decision was affirmed on appeal.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's job loss was due to violating company policies.

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—
Hearing heldJul 2, 2021
Decision dateSep 13, 2021Appeal affirmed.

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Effort to Repay Debts
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Based on Personal Responsibility for Financial Issues

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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. 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 conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJohn Bayard Glendon 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 argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial issues and job loss, affirming that the Judge considered all evidence and applied the law correctly.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference 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: We find no error in the Judge’s conclusions that Applicant’s job loss cannot be viewed as having resulted from conditions largely beyond his control because he was fired from that job for violating company policies and he did not act responsibly under the circumstances by failing to contact the creditors or develop plans to repay the debts. In short, none of Applicant’s arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-03247.a1 DATE: 09/13/2021 DATE: September 13, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-03247

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Lindsay Bierman, Esq. 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 hearing. On July 2, 2021, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Bayard Glendon denied Applicant’s request for a securityclearance. 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. Applicant, who is in his forties, is married with adult children. He honorably served in the U.S. military and has previously held a security clearance. The SOR alleged that he had eight delinquent debts totaling about $31,900. He admitted the debts in the SOR. The Judge found that each debt remained unresolved and concluded that Applicant had not initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue creditors and none of the mitigating conditions were established. On appeal, Applicant contends the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, mis-weighed the evidence, and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. He argues, for example, that the Judge erred in failing to give proper weight to Mitigating Condition 20(b), i.e., the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances, by pointing out that he lost his job in 2015, earned significantly less in subsequent jobs, and resolved some debts that were not alleged in the SOR. This argument is not persuasive. We find no error in the Judge’s conclusions that Applicant’s job loss cannot be viewed as having resulted from conditions largely beyond his control because he was fired from that job for violating company policies and he did not act responsibly under the circumstances by failing to contact the creditors or develop plans to repay the debts. In short, none of Applicant’s arguments are enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 3, 2020). Moreover, his arguments are not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Id. In his brief, Applicant requests “a probationary period be instituted.” Appeal Brief at 8. To the extent that he is requesting a conditional security clearance, we conclude that Applicant has not established that the granting of an exception under Appendix C of the Adjudicative Guidelines is merited. Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. 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