CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-08326.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-08326.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-08326.a1

May 28, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial issues. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the board emphasizing that strong employment performance does not mitigate security concerns arising from financial conduct.

Disqualifying Condition F.3 was raised, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations. While Mitigating Conditions F.2, F.3, and F.4 were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's lengthy and serious history of failing to meet financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, the applicant still had significant delinquent debts and was actively in the process of resolving these financial problems.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and serious.
F.3notedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial Problem
F.4rejectedThe Person Has a Good Payment History on DebtsThe applicant's overall financial history was deemed insufficient to mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security implications.”
— ISCR Case No. 99-0123 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 11, 2000)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 10, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2008
Decision dateMay 28, 2008

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Whole-person Analysis Beyond Workplace Conduct
Insufficient Weight Given to Employment Record in Light of Serious Financial Obligations

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not adequately consider his employment record. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the assessment of the applicant's financial issues and overall security eligibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision 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
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may still engage in conduct with negative security implications. A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-08326.a1 DATE: 05/28/2008 DATE: May 28, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-08326

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 October 10, 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 February 28, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry 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 adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. Applicant argues that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not give sufficient weight to Applicant’s excellent employment record, and the fact that he had been a dependable, trustworthy employee who had always followed the applicable security rules. Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred. An applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative security implications. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 99-0123 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 11, 2000). The Directive's Guidelines set forth a variety of examples of off-duty conduct and circumstances which are of security concern to the government and mandate a whole-person analysis to determine an applicant's security eligibility. A whole-person analysis is not confined to the workplace. See ISCR Case No. 03-11231 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 4, 2004). Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. 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 lengthy and 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 his 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 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). 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). Accordingly, 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board