A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 05-12836.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Sep 18, 2007 · Administrative Judge Jeffery D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to significant financial problems, including a bankruptcy discharge in 2001 and subsequent debt accumulation. The judge found that the applicant's financial history demonstrated carelessness and poor judgment, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant was discharged in bankruptcy in 2001 and subsequently accumulated further significant debt.
- The judge concluded that the applicant's financial history evidenced carelessness, irresponsibility, and poor judgment.
- The applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for obtaining a security clearance.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion that he should have a security clearance.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2006-02-28
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2007-03-19 Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
- Decision date
- 2007-09-18 Appeal affirmed by the DOHA.
Cite for
- Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
- Burden of Persuasion in Security Clearance Cases
- Impact of Bankruptcy on Security Clearance Eligibility
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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial history.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY When unredacted this document contains information EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA Exemption 6 applies KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had been discharged in bankruptcy in 2001 but afterward ran up further significant debt. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 05-12836.a1 DATE: 09/18/2007 DATE: September 18, 2007 In Re: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 05-12836
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 28, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons 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 19, 2007, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Applicant’s brief and attachments include new matters not submitted in his response to the File of Relevant Material. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had been discharged in bankruptcy in 2001 but afterward ran up further significant debt. While some of these debts had been paid off at the time of the Judge’s decision, the Judge concluded that, on the whole, Applicant’s financial history evidenced “carelessness, irresponsibility, and poor judgement.” The Judge further concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion that he should have a security clearance. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of Applicant’s brief on appeal and the record as a whole and conclude that it is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. We cannot consider the new matters which Applicant has submitted in support of his appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29; ISCR Case No. 04-11369 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Mar. 16, 2007).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board