CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-24093.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-24093.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-24093.a1

Oct 16, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and ongoing financial issues. The applicant had twelve delinquent debts, totaling approximately $37,000, with unpaid taxes forming a primary component of this amount. These financial problems were considered recent and persistent.

A key factor in the denial was the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for his claims of debt resolution. Without documentation to verify that the debts had been addressed, the appeal board affirmed the initial denial of the security clearance.

The decision highlighted the applicant's unmitigated financial concerns and the lack of verifiable steps taken to resolve them, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Once there has been a concern articulated regarding an applicant’s security eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 25, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 26, 2008
Decision dateOct 16, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroboration in Debt Resolution Claims
Burden of Proof Shifts to Applicant 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 was regarding the denial of a security clearance under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate that the decision was contrary to law or arbitrary. The adverse decision was upheld based on the applicant's significant outstanding debts and lack of sufficient mitigation evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed the Judge's adverse decision under Guideline F was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

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: After the government presents evidence raising a security concern the burden shift to the applicant to establish mitigation. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-24093.a1 DATE: 10/16/2008 DATE: October 16, 2008 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-24093

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 February 25, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Applicant had twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,000. Over $34,000 of the debt was for unpaid taxes to the IRS for tax years 2001through 2004 and to his home state. He potentially owed an additional $5,000 to the IRS for tax years 2005 through 2007. Applicant claimed to have paid or settled seven debts for $1,800 in March 2008, but provided no corroboration that he had done so. of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On June 26, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. 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’s unfavorable clearance decision under Guideline F is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because Applicant has acknowledged he “made bad judgments about the handling of [his] taxes” and he is working to resolve his financial problems. Given the totality of the record evidence, Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Once there has been a concern articulated regarding an applicant’s security eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9 Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the government th presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the particular facts of a case. Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the record evidence as a whole. 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.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-02833 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar.19, 2007). “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. 05-03143 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20, 2006). Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Judge erred in concluding that the Guideline F allegations had not been mitigated. Although Applicant strongly disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions, he has not established that those conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a serious history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time the case was submitted for decision, he still had significant outstanding tax debts and was still in the process of trying to resolve his financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were recent and still ongoing. 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. 02-28041 at 4 (App. Bd. Jun. 29, 2005). The Board does not review a case de novo. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 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)). Therefore, 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; Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board