CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-20062.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-20062.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-20062.a1

Jul 15, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The government established its case based on the applicant's admission to most of her debts.

Despite the applicant's claims of timely payments and engagement with credit counseling, the appeal board found insufficient evidence of good faith in resolving her financial obligations. Specifically, the applicant was not making payments on past-due debts, which was a key factor in the denial.

The board determined that reliance on credit counseling advice alone was not enough to mitigate the security concerns raised by the outstanding financial issues. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish good faith in resolving her debts.
F.3rejectedThe Individual Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant was not making payments on her past-due debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The value of an applicant’s expertise to a defense contractor or military service is not relevant or material to determining the applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance.”
— ISCR Case No. 99-0109 at 6 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2000)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 22, 2007
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateJul 15, 2008

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Good Faith in Resolving Debts Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties
Irrelevance of Applicant's Expertise to 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 an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and that her financial situation was mitigated. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error that would change the outcome.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — 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 contends that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to her mitigating evidence.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant identifies an error in the Judge's statement regarding her payments on a particular debt.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the errors identified by the Applicant were either harmless or did not warrant a different outcome.

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

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

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: The value of an applicant expertise to a defense contractor or military service is not relevant or material to determining the applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-20062.a1 DATE: 07/15/2008 DATE: July 15, 2008 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-20062

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 August 22, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of The Board may not consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Therefore, information not already in the record, including changes in account balances due to the passage of time, may not be taken into consideration. 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 the case be decided on the written record. On April 7, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant argues that the Judge should have found her financial situation to be mitigated. Applicant identifies a number of statements in the Judge’s decision which she considers to be error. Applicant also points out her abilities and contributions to the defense of the United States. She requests in the alternative that she be granted “approval with [a] warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of access.” Applicant’s Brief at 3, quoting Directive ¶ E2.2(f). In her response to the government’s SOR, Applicant admitted all but four of the alleged debts. Her admissions established the government’s case. The burden then shifted to Applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts she admitted. The ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security clearance decision rested with Applicant. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. In her responses, Applicant provided information about the origin of her financial difficulties. She stated that she was paying her current obligations in a timely manner, but (with the exception of one debt not listed in the SOR) was not making payments on her past-due debts and intended to allow them to drop from her credit report with the passage of time. At that time, she also noted some attempts to improve her financial situation, including consultation with a credit counselor, who advised her to allow the old debts to drop off, as noted above, as a strategy to raise her credit score. In her decision, the Judge referred to the information Applicant provided. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial situation was not mitigated because of “insufficient information to establish that Applicant showed good faith in the resolution of her debt.” Decision at 6. Applicant contends that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence. 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 the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (May 23, 2008). In her appeal brief, Applicant identifies a number of statements in the Judge’s decision which she considers to be errors. Applicant is correct that the Judge erred in stating that Applicant made As regards the obtaining of a security clearance, Applicant’s reliance on the advice of her credit counselor is misguided. A Judge is not bound to accept such advice as relevant to Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance, since a strategy to raise a credit score does not necessarily satisfy the government’s security concerns. payments on a particular debt (not listed in the SOR) only until July 2004. Decision at 2. Applicant told an investigator that she made payments only until July 2004 on a related but separate debt (SOR ¶ 1.m). The identified error is harmless in light of Applicant’s overall financial situation, since it is unlikely that correction of that error would have lead to a different result in Applicant’s case. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-20638 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2005). The other statements cited by Applicant are not in error, since they are reasonable characterizations or are otherwise supported by record evidence.2 Applicant also argues that she has unique abilities and that denial of her security clearance will be detrimental to the government in waging the Global War on Terror. The Board has held that the value of an applicant’s expertise to a defense contractor or military service is not relevant or material to determining the applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0109 at 6 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2000). An applicant’s expertise is not a measure of whether that applicant demonstrates the high degree of judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness that must be reposed in persons entrusted with classified information. Id. In the alternative, Applicant requests that she be granted “approval with a warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of her clearance.” Directive ¶ E2.2(f). The Board does not have authority to review cases de novo to consider such a request. Accordingly, because the Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable, the Board need not reach this issue.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.

Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board