CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11903.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11903.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11903.a1

Apr 7, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $15,000 in delinquent consumer debt. The judge determined that the applicant demonstrated difficulty living within her means, citing ongoing financial problems despite some efforts to resolve them.

The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, which addresses significant delinquent debt. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated and posed a potential risk to national security interests.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to demonstrate a stable financial situation and consistent adherence to a budget led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Judge’s decision that "it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant" is sustainable on this record.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 10, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 11, 2007
Decision dateApr 7, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Security Concern
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Problems Affecting National Security

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 seeking a security clearance who had over $15,000 in delinquent consumer debt. The Administrative Judge denied the clearance, citing ongoing financial issues. The applicant appealed, arguing that the Judge misapplied mitigating factors. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's reasoning.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in her application of the relevant Guideline F mitigating factors.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's application of the relevant mitigating factors under Guideline F, affirming that the Judge's decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

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

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has over $15,000 of delinquent consumer debt. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11903.a1 DATE: 04/07/2008 DATE: April 7, 2008 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-11903

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 10, 2007, 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 December 11, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in her application of the relevant Guideline F mitigating factors. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant has over $15,000 worth of delinquent consumer debt, most of it incurred during or before 2003. Although Applicant’s problems were affected by a marital separation, and although she has made efforts to pay off some of her debts, the Judge concluded that Applicant has difficulty living within her means. The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial problems appear to be ongoing and that her recent efforts to resolve her debts are not sufficient to outweigh the security concerns arising therefrom. The Judge noted that even if Applicant succeeded in reducing monthly expenditures by $250, “she would still need to rely on financial help from friends and/or family that has yet to materialize.” Decision at 8. The Judge’s has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” and her ultimate adverse security clearance decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey 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