CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-03503.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-03503.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03503.a1

Sep 14, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts totaling nearly $22,500. The initial decision to deny the clearance was upheld on appeal.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the financial concerns. Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of addressing her long-standing debts or participating in financial counseling. While Disqualifying Condition F.3 was raised, Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were applied, but ultimately deemed insufficient.

The judges affirmed the original decision, concluding that the applicant's personal circumstances did not adequately mitigate the financial concerns, and there was a lack of evidence demonstrating financial responsibility or a plan to resolve the outstanding debts.

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 applicant attributed her financial problems to a marital separation but did not demonstrate that her debts were being addressed.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemThe applicant did not present evidence of financial counseling.

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 issuedFeb 17, 2021
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJun 29, 2021
Decision dateSep 14, 2021Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Evaluations
Insufficient Personal Circumstances to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Standards for Evaluating Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 Department of Defense denied her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Tuider — 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The Board affirmed the decision based on the evidence presented in the record.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural compliance

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’s appeal includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her brief she notes such things as her marital difficulties, her having paid off the smaller SOR debts, and her having worked for her employer for thirteen years. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse Decision Affirmed. CASE NO: 20-03503.a1 DATE: 09/14/2021 DATE: September 14, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-03503

) ) 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 February 17, 2021, 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 June 29, 2021, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 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. The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis Applicant’s SOR alleged seven delinquent debts, the Judge finding against her on two of them. One of these was a charged-off credit card for nearly $13,500 and the other a charged-off automobile loan for nearly $9,000. Neither of these debts have been resolved. Applicant attributed her financial problems to a marital separation that left her with debts and with responsibility for a child. Applicant did not begin making payments on any of her SOR accounts until after DOHA issued the SOR. In concluding that Applicant had not mitigated concerns arising from the two debts described above, the Judge stated that she had been employed for the majority of her adult life and that since her divorce in 2015 she has remarried and purchased a home. He stated that she had not presented evidence that her long-standing debts are being addressed or that she has received financial counseling. Accordingly, he concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her brief she notes such things as her marital difficulties, her having paid off the smaller SOR debts, and her having worked for her employer for thirteen years. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record or to demonstrate 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). She states that her clearance allows her to continue working and maintain a steady income. The Directive does not permit us to consider the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-03024 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 9, 2020). 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 securityeligibilitywill 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