CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-02411.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-02411.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-02411.a1

May 5, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A U.S. Air Force veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $40,000 in delinquent debt. This debt included court fines, child support, and car notes. The judge applied disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c).

The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties were not caused by circumstances beyond his control. Specifically, the applicant voluntarily left the Air Force following a DUI incident, which contributed to his financial instability.

Although mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(b) was considered, it was not sufficient to overcome the security concerns. The applicant failed to provide documentation of any efforts to pay off his debts and had never sought debt counseling. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing his financial obligations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge concluded that the applicant's financial problems were not due to circumstances outside his control.

Key Rule Quoted

“The record supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has not met his burden of persuasion that it is 'clearly consistent with the national interest' for him to have a clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988); Directive ¶ E3.1.25.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 18, 2008
Decision dateMay 5, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions When Financial Problems Are Self-inflicted
Importance of Demonstrating Efforts to Address Financial Delinquencies for 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 due to financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and in his overall analysis. The Board found no error and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his application of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's whole person analysis is erroneous.
Legal error — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge did not use the proper standard in deciding Applicant’s case.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, and the Judge applied the correct legal standards in reaching his decision. The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's application of the mitigating conditions or in his whole person analysis.

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 explanation follows rationally from his findings of fact. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-02411.a1 DATE: 05/05/2008 DATE: May 5, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-02411

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Annie P. Briscoe, Esq. For example, the Judge considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 20(b), which mitigates security concerns when the financial problems arose from causes outside the applicant’s control. The Judge concluded that Applicant’s having voluntarily left the Air Force following an incident of DUI is not a matter that was outside his control, and Applicant had not acted responsibly in addressing his debts. Decision at 4. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 11, 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 January 18, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his application of the Guideline F mitigating conditions; whether the Judge’s whole person analysis is erroneous; and whether the Judge used the proper standard in deciding Applicant’s case. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is a high school graduate who has taken some college courses over the years. He is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, having served from 1991 through his honorable discharge in 2004. His decision to leave the Air Force was prompted by a 2003 driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) conviction. Shortly after leaving the Air Force, Applicant began struggling financially. By late 2006, he had accrued approximately $40,000 of delinquent debt, including among other things, $1,300 in delinquent court fines stemming from the 2003 DUI, $3,700 in delinquent child support payments, $3,500 in eviction and miscellaneous property rental dispute fees, $25,000 on two delinquent car notes, and $2,100 in delinquencies related to a time-share property purchased before he left the Air Force. Applicant provided no documentation to support his claim that he was making efforts to pay off his debts. He has never attended debt counseling, and all of the delinquencies remain outstanding. The Board has considered Applicant’s claims of error. The Judge utilized the correct standard in evaluating Applicant’s case. Furthermore, the Judge’s decision articulates “a satisfactory explanation for [his] conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found” and his adverse decision, both as to the application of Guideline F mitigating conditions as well as the whole-person analysis. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). The record supports the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant has not met his burden of persuasion that it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” for him to have a clearance. Decision at 5. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988); Directive ¶ E3.1.25. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the Judge’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

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