CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-09462.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-09462.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-09462.a1

Jul 19, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of unpaid debts. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial, concluding that the applicant's financial issues were not isolated incidents and that he failed to demonstrate adequate mitigation of the security concerns.

The denial was based on several disqualifying conditions under Guideline F. The applicant had a long-standing history of failing to meet financial obligations over many years. At the time of the decision, significant outstanding debts remained, and the applicant had only recently begun to make repayments.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial problems were recent, ongoing, and not isolated, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden on appeal.”
— ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2004)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 24, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 3, 2007
Decision dateJul 19, 2007

Cite For

Affirmation of the Heavy Burden on Applicants to Demonstrate Mitigation of Financial Issues
Rebuttable Presumption of Judicial Impartiality
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Basis for Denial 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 involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that he was denied due process and 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 belowJoseph Testan — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Due-process / fairness — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued he was denied due process due to lack of a full investigation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended the Judge's decision under Guideline F was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no merit in the applicant's claims of due process violations or that the Judge's decision was arbitrary or capricious. The Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and followed proper procedures.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
Jean E. Smallin
William S. Fields

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: There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 06-09462.a1 DATE: 07/19/2007 DATE: July 19, 2007 In Re: -------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-09462

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 July 24, 2006, DOHA 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 January 3, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant was denied due process; and whether the Judge’s unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. (1) Applicant argues that he was denied due process because he did not receive a full investigation of the case, and a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon a totality of the evidence. The Board does not find this argument persuasive. The method and scope of background investigations are outside the scope of review of the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0293 at 4 (App. Bd. May 5, 2000). The hearing is the Applicant’s opportunity to produce other evidence beyond that developed by his background investigation for the purpose of rebutting, explaining, extenuating, or mitigating facts to which he has admitted or which have been proven by Department Counsel. See, e.g., Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The Judge is then duty bound to consider all of the evidence developed on the record of the case before him. Any attempt on the part of the judge to independently investigate allegations or develop facts would, of course, conflict with the judge’s role as an impartial fact finder. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-32606 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 21, 2004). There is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to rebut that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2004). The issue is not whether Applicant personally believes the Judge was biased or unfair. Rather, the issue is whether the record contains any indication the Judge acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to question the fairness and impartiality of the Judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-04713 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2003). Lack of partiality is not demonstrated merely because the Judge made adverse findings or reached unfavorable conclusions. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 94-0954 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 1995). Moreover, even if an appealing party demonstrates error by the Judge, proof of such error, standing alone, does not demonstrate the Judge was biased or unfair. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 98-0515 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 1999). Applicant has not met the heavy burden of persuasion noted above, in that he fails to identify anything in the record below that indicates or suggests a basis for a reasonable person to question the fairness, impartiality, or professionalism of the Judge. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-00740 at 2 (App. Bd. June 6, 2006). (2) Applicant contends that the Judge should have concluded that the security concerns raised by his multiple unpaid debts was mitigated because his debts were largely the result of circumstances beyond his control—loss of employment and unexpected medical expenses; they were isolated incidents that were not recent; and Applicant has received counseling and there are indications that the problem is under control. In support of his contention, Applicant essentially reargues his case The Board may not consider new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Accordingly, we may not consider Applicant’s additional explanations, and they do not demonstrate error on the part of the Judge. with respect to the evidence he presented at the hearing and provides addition statements as to his current financial situation. Applicants’ arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. “[T]here is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.” Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 905 (1991). Once the government th presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 01-14740 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan.15, 2003). Thus, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that the security concerns raised by Applicant’s unpaid debts had not been mitigated. Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a history of not meeting financial obligations which extended over many years. At the time the case was submitted for decision, he still had significant outstanding debts and had only recently begun to repay his debts. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were recent, not isolated, and still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-00799 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 16, 2007). The favorable record evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. June 29, 2005). The Board does not review a case de novo. Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board