CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-14738.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-14738.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-14738.a1

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

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to substantial delinquent debts. Key concerns included approximately $9,000 in unpaid child support and $4,965 stemming from a lease cancellation. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19 and 20.

While mitigating conditions under Paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 were considered, the judge ultimately found them insufficient. The applicant failed to meet the burden of persuasion to demonstrate adequate financial responsibility.

The denial was based on a whole-person analysis, which concluded that the applicant did not exhibit a sufficient track record of fiscal responsibility to mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 20raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgement
AG ¶ 22rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control and the Individual Acted Responsibly Under the Circumstances
AG ¶ 23rejectedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

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 issuedJan 30, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 31, 2008
Decision dateOct 28, 2008

Cite For

Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Evaluations
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Decisions

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 substantial delinquent debts for child support and lease cancellation. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and in the whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCharles D. Ablard — 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's application of the Guideline F mitigating conditions was erroneous.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's substantial delinquent debts and the application of mitigating conditions. The Judge's whole-person analysis was also deemed sustainable.

Standard of review applied

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

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 found that Applicant has substantial delinquent debts for child support and cancellation of a lease. The Judge’s conclusions in light of findings are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-14738.a1 DATE: 10/28/2008 DATE: October 28, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-14738

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR subparagraphs 1(a), 1(c-d), and 1(g-j) is not at issue in this appeal. Directive ¶ E2.19(a): “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” Directive ¶ E2.19(c): “a history of not meeting financial obligations[.]” Directive ¶ E2.20(a): “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement;” Directive ¶ E2.20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the persons’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;” Directive ¶ E2.20(d): “the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]” The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 30, 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 hearing. On July 31, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Charles D. Ablard 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’s application of the Guideline F mitigating conditions was erroneous and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant has a delinquent debt of $4,965 arising from his cancellation of an apartment lease. He also found that Applicant has delinquent debts for child support obligations for two of his three children. The combined amount of the delinquency for the two child support debts is approximately $9,000. The Judge properly concluded that Applicant’s case raised security concerns under Guideline F. The record demonstrates that he considered appropriate mitigating conditions. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to the debts described above. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. Viewed in light of the record as a whole, this conclusion is sustainable. The Board has also examined the Judge’s whole-person analysis, in which he concluded that Applicant had not established a sufficient track record of fiscal responsibility to justify the award of a security clearance. This is also sustainable. 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)). Viewed in light of the standard set forth in 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’”), the Judge’s decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. In support of his appeal Applicant has submitted new matters 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.”)

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffery 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