A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-11903.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Apr 7, 2008 · Administrative Judge James E. Moody · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to over $15,000 in delinquent consumer debt. Despite efforts to address her financial issues, the judge found her problems ongoing and insufficiently mitigated, emphasizing the connection between her financial situation and national security interests.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant has over $15,000 of delinquent consumer debt.
- The judge concluded that the applicant has difficulty living within her means.
- The applicant's financial problems appear to be ongoing despite some efforts to resolve them.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 19 Financial Considerationsraised
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.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2007-07-10
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2007-12-11
- Decision date
- 2008-04-07
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
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.
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
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
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