CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 05-12836.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 05-12836.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-12836.a1

Sep 18, 2007· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of significant financial problems. A key issue was a bankruptcy discharge in 2001, followed by the accumulation of substantial new debt.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial history demonstrated carelessness, irresponsibility, and poor judgment. These issues were specifically raised under Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 20.

Ultimately, the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion required to obtain a security clearance, leading to the denial of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 28, 2006
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldMar 19, 2007Decision made by Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean.
Decision dateSep 18, 2007Appeal 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· 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 decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's financial irresponsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — 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 alleged that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were sustainable and that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Board also noted that new matters submitted by the Applicant could not be considered.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealArbitrary-and-capricious review

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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

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

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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