CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-02417.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-02417.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-02417.a1

Feb 5, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. This denial stemmed from significant delinquent debts totaling over $152,000, primarily accumulated through credit card cash withdrawals.

The judge determined that the applicant had not taken concrete steps to mitigate these substantial financial concerns. This failure to address the financial problems directly led to the denial.

The appeal board subsequently affirmed the judge's decision, upholding the denial of the security clearance based on the applicant's unresolved financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 4, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 27, 2007
Decision dateFeb 5, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Despite Attempts to Develop Technology
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions by Appeal Board When Supported by Substantial Evidence

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 who was denied a security clearance due to delinquent debts exceeding $152,000. The applicant challenged the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — 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 certain of the Judge’s findings were not based upon substantial record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: Applicant had delinquent debts in excess of $152,000. The Judge’s decision is not arbitrary , capricious, nor contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-02417.a1 DATE: 02/05/2008 DATE: February 5, 2008 In Re: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-02417

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 May 4, 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 September 27, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley 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 certain of the Judge’s findings were not based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had attempted to develop technology for the detection of explosive devices. He decided to finance this development through the use of his credit card. At the time of the decision, Applicant had delinquent debts in excess of $152,000, most of which were for cash withdrawals on the credit card. Other debts, however, pertained to student loans taken out to finance his wife’s education. The Judge noted that Applicant’s few assets make a debt consolidation loan impracticable. In his Conclusions section, the Judge stated that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial problems, “[t]aking into account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s debt accumulations and lack of concrete steps taken to date to resolve them . . .” Decision at 8. Applicant challenges several of the Judge’s findings of fact or descriptions of Applicant’s circumstances. The bulk of Applicant’s claims are not material to the issues to be adjudicated in the case. Evaluating the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole, we conclude that the Judge has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found” and his ultimate adverse decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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)). (A Judge is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made’”). “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). Accordingly, we hold that this decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. See Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision 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