CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-23179.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-23179.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-23179.a1

Mar 21, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing herself was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and unresolved financial issues. The judge determined that the applicant had a serious history of failing to meet financial obligations, which raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19.

At the time of the hearing, the applicant still carried substantial delinquent debts. While the applicant presented mitigating evidence, the judge found it insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns regarding her financial stability.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's ongoing financial problems remained significant and unresolved, leading to the denial of the security clearance. Mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were considered but deemed inadequate to outweigh the established security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and the mitigating evidence insufficient.

Key Rule Quoted

“Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 20, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 30, 2007
Decision dateMar 21, 2008

Cite For

Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigating Evidence in Financial Cases
Burden of Proof Shifts to Applicant for Mitigation After Government Raises Security Concerns.

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 did not adequately consider mitigating evidence regarding her financial difficulties. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to mitigating evidence regarding her financial situation.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were reasonable based on the findings of fact and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error.

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: The Judge’s adverse conclusions follow reasonably from hid findings of fact. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-23179.a1 DATE: 03/21/2008 DATE: March 21, 2008 In Re: ------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-23179

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 20, 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 November 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that the security concerns raised under Guideline F had not been mitigated. Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s mitigating evidence which showed that: (a) Applicant’s indebtedness had resulted from circumstances beyond her control, the loss of employment, and (b) she had paid off some of her outstanding debts and has sought the assistance of a credit restoration agency in order to clear up the remaining ones. Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge erred. Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and whole-person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. 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 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. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a serious history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had significant delinquent debts and was still in the process of resolving her financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating conditions and whole-person factors. The Judge found in favor of Applicant with respect to a number of the SOR allegations. However, the Judge reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome all of the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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. 06-11172 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). Given the record that was before him, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance 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