CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 0713685.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 0713685.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 0713685.a1

Oct 10, 2008· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

A 41-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial difficulties, including multiple delinquent bills and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 19.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to meet the burden of persuasion, citing a sparse record that lacked sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. Consequently, the adverse decision was affirmed on appeal.

The final outcome was a denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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 issuedApr 3, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 24, 2008
Decision dateOct 10, 2008

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Meet the Burden of Persuasion Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility
Harmless Error Doctrine in Security Clearance Appeals

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 based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant challenged two findings of fact, which the Board found to be harmless errors. The Board affirmed the adverse decision, noting that the judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in stating that she is a switchboard operator instead of a security control monitor.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantError found, but harmless
Applicant contends that the 16-year-old son referenced in the Judge’s decision is not her son but her stepson.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. The errors claimed by the Applicant were found to be harmless and did not affect the outcome of the decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael D. Hipple
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 noted that the record is sparse and concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion. On appeal Applicant challenges two findings of fact which if incorrect are harmless errors. Applicant submits new evidence which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 0713685.a1 DATE: 10/10/2008 DATE: October 10, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-13685

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 April 3, 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 July 24, 2008, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She has never held a security clearance. Applicant has a number of delinquent bills, including those for medical treatment resulting from an automobile accident. She has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. The total value of debts alleged in the SOR amounts to $16,835, although four of the debts are duplicates of others. In evaluating Applicant’s case, the Judge noted that the “record in this case is very sparse. It reveals little about Applicant’s background and reputation, the circumstances leading to her financial difficulties, and her responses to those difficulties.” Decision at 7. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”) 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.”) Applicant contends that the Judge erred in stating that she is a switchboard operator instead of a security control monitor, and that the 16-year-old son referenced in the Judge’s decision is not her son but her stepson. To the extent that this information is incorrect, the errors are harmless. In support of her appeal, Applicant submitted new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”) In light of the record as a whole, 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 is sustainable on this record.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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