CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-17806.a1 — CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date11/21/2008
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 07-17806.h1) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Michael Y. Ra'anan, James E. Moody, William S. Fields
Government Counsel: James B. Norman
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 07-17806.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-17806.a1

Nov 21, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a U.S. security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The primary issue centered on Guideline F, due to approximately $26,471 in delinquent debt.

The judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20, specifically noting the applicant's substantial unmitigated debt. While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 21 were considered, they were not deemed sufficient to resolve the concerns.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation, characterized by the unmitigated delinquent debt, presented an unacceptable security risk. Therefore, the security clearance was denied in the national interest.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation of his financial situation.

Key Rule Quoted

“it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 14, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 16, 2008
Decision dateNov 21, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Rational Connection Between Findings and Denial of Clearance

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, specifically $26,000 in delinquent debt. The Applicant argued that the Judge's 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 belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline JGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued 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 error in the Judge's decision, which reasonably concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of his financial situation to support a favorable security clearance determination. The decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo 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; Guideline J; Guideline E DIGEST: The judge found that Applicant still has some $26,000 in delinquent debt. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation to support a favorable security clearance determination. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 07-17806.a1 DATE:11/21/2008 DATE: November 21, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-17806

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 February 14, 2008 DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR subparagraphs 1(a), (c-e), (g-h), (jj) and under Guidelines J and E is not at issue in this appeal. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 16, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts. He found that some of the debts alleged in the SOR were apparently duplicates of others. Additionally, he decided in favor of Applicant on debts that Applicant demonstrated he had actually paid off. However, the Judge reasonably concluded that, even discounting these matters, Applicant still had at least $26,471 in delinquent debt. After examining the possible application of pertinent mitigating conditions, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient mitigation of his financial situation to support a favorable security clearance adjudication. The Judge’s decision, viewed in light of the record as a whole, draws a rational connection between the facts found and its ultimate denial of a security clearance for Applicant. 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 the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 12. 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; William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed; James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board