CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-13235.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-13235.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-13235.a1

Oct 2, 2008· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A 33-year-old senior contract administrator for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from the applicant's delinquent debts and inconsistent statements made regarding these financial obligations.

Specifically, the applicant had outstanding delinquent debts, including one for a car and another for a tire account. The judge noted that the applicant provided inconsistent information about these debts and failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating a clear intent to resolve them.

While disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19 were raised, the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to apply mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial Considerations Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not explain her financial hardships or provide evidence of intent to resolve her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.'”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 7, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2008
Decision dateOct 2, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Inconsistent Statements Regarding 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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider certain evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that certain information she provided was not considered by the Judge.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's unfavorable decision was arbitrary, capricious, and 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 Judge's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jean E. Smallin
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 cites to information she reports was provided to “The Investigator” and does not understand why it was not considered by the Judge. Applicant was provided a copy of the record to be considered by the Judge and advised of her rights and the procedures to be followed. She did not object or submit additional information. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-13235.a1 DATE: 10/02/2008 DATE: October 2, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-13235

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 January 7, 2008, 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 decision on the written record. On June 30, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 of fact are supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. Applicant is 33 years old and a senior contract administrator for a defense contractor. She also has been employed as a bartender since April 2005. The Judge found that Applicant has delinquent debts, one for a car and another for a “tire account.” Decision at 2. Although the SOR contains three allegations, the Judge found that the first two refer to the same car purchase. Applicant made inconsistent statements concerning her debts and provided no evidence to demonstrate an intent to pay them off. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion, either under the pertinent mitigating conditions or under the whole-person factors. He stated that Applicant “mentioned financial hardships but did not explain what those hardships were. Even though she may have incurred no new debt in the last five years, she still has the two past due accounts; one is more than four years old, and the other is more than seven years old. Failure to pay those two accounts, or resolve past mistakes, demonstrates unwillingness to satisfy debts that has not been mitigated by any of the [Guideline F mitigating conditions].” Decision at 5-6. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”) In support of her appeal, Applicant submitted new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.” Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant cites to information she reports that she provided to “the Investigator” and does not understand why it was not in the record. A review of the record shows that Applicant was sent a copy of the record to be considered by the Judge, along with a cover letter dated March 6, 2008, which advised her that “If you do not file any objections to the attached material or submit any additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter, your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on the attached file of relevant material.” The record demonstrates that Applicant submitted no objections or additional information. Her case was processed accordingly. The Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance 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)). The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant [A]pplicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board