Loading case…

ISCR 06-15508.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2007) · CASE

ISCR Case 06-15508.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-15508.a1

deniedSep 21, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

This case concerns an applicant who was denied a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The applicant, representing herself, had accrued nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,000, primarily stemming from car payments or repairs. The judge determined that her financial difficulties were worsened by her husband's job insecurity and that her monthly expenditures consistently exceeded her income.

Although the applicant filed for bankruptcy, the judge found these efforts insufficient to demonstrate that her financial problems would not recur post-discharge. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) were raised, while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) were applied.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial of her trustworthiness designation. The board concluded that the applicant's actions were not enough to meet the burden of persuasion required for a favorable decision, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant accrued nine delinquent debts totaling about $18,000, primarily related to car payments or repairs.
The judge found that the applicant's financial problems were exacerbated by her husband's job insecurity and that her monthly expenditures exceeded her income.
While the applicant filed for bankruptcy, the judge concluded that her efforts were insufficient to demonstrate that her financial problems would not recur after discharge.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge commended the applicant for filing for bankruptcy but found it insufficient to meet the burden of persuasion.

Key rule quoted

“Absent a showing that an applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing or present evidence, an applicant is not entitled to a new hearing just so that applicant can have another chance to present applicant’s case.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 22, 2007
Decision dateSep 21, 2007

Cite for

Affirmation of Adverse Trustworthiness Determination Under Guideline F Due to Significant Delinquent Debts
Insufficiency of Bankruptcy Filing as a Mitigating Factor in Financial Considerations
Denial of Request for a New Hearing Absent Evidence of Unfair Treatment During the Original Hearing

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: Absent a showing that an applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing or present evidence, an applicant is not entitled to a new hearing just so that applicant can have another chance to present applicant’s case. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-15508.a1 DATE: 09/21/2007 DATE: September 21, 2007 In Re: --------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-15508

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 trustworthiness designation. On October 11, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 March 22, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. We construe Applicant’s appeal as asserting that the Judge did not give appropriate consideration to record evidence concerning Applicant’s efforts to resolve her financial difficulties and that as a consequence the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Judge found that, between 1998 and 2006, Applicant accrued nine delinquent debts totaling about $18,000. Most of those debts related to car payments or repairs. By August 2006, Applicant’s monthly expenditures exceeded her income. Applicant’s financial problems have been exacerbated by her husband’s job insecurity. Prior to the hearing, Applicant retained an attorney to file for bankruptcy protection on her behalf. As part of the bankruptcy process, she will receive debt management counseling. In resolving her case, the Judge commended Applicant for her decision to take control of her financial situation through bankruptcy. However, he weighed this positive step against the length of time it took Applicant to begin resolving her debt problems. Furthermore, he concluded that the record provided little reason to believe that Applicant’s financial problems will not recur after discharge in bankruptcy. Therefore, while the Judge considered Applicant’s efforts to solve her problems, he did not find those efforts sufficient to meet Applicant’s burden of persuasion. See ADP No. 06-02549 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007) (“Mere disagreement with the weight assigned particular evidence by a Judge does not establish error.”) See also Directive ¶ E3.1.15. (“The applicant . . . has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable . . . decision.”) Applicant asks in the alternative for a remand so that she may present additional evidence. Applicant is asking for a remedy not available to her. It is well settled that “absent a showing that an applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing or was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his or her behalf, an applicant is not entitled to receive a new hearing just so the applicant can have another chance to present his or her case.” ISCR Case No. 04-01047 at (App. Bd. Oct. 20, 2005). Compare ISCR Case 00-0250 at (App. Bd. Feb. 13, 2001) (“If the Board were to grant Applicant’s request for a new hearing or allow her to submit new evidence in this case, then the Board would be giving her special treatment and denying other, similarly-situated applicants of their right to receive the fair, impartial, and even-handed application of Executive Order 10865 and the Directive.”) In light of the record as a whole, the Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, 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