CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-00344.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-00344.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00344.a1

Mar 9, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant delinquent debt and ongoing financial issues. The judge determined that the applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations, which raised security concerns.

At the time of the decision, significant outstanding debts remained unresolved. The applicant presented mitigating evidence, but the judge found it insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns regarding financial responsibility.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied based on the unmitigated financial considerations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that 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 issuedJul 25, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 30, 2008
Decision dateMar 9, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Ongoing Financial Issues
The Weighing of Evidence by the Judge Is Not Subject to De Novo Review

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 who was denied a security clearance due to significant delinquent debt. The applicant argued that the Judge did not correctly weigh the mitigating evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence and concluding that the Judge's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not correctly weigh Applicant’s mitigating evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded 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. The Judge's unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference 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: The Judge concluded that Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from significant delinquent debt. Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence did not demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in an erroneous manner. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-00344.a1 DATE: 03/09/2009 DATE: March 9, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-00344

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 July 25, 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 December 30, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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. Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because the Judge did not correctly weigh Applicant’s mitigating evidence. Applicant argues that this evidence was sufficient to warrant favorable application of the mitigating conditions and whole person factors. In support of his argument, Applicant submits new evidence in the form of documentary exhibits which the Board cannot consider on appeal. See Directive E3.1.29. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. 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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). A party’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. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time the case was submitted for decision, Applicant still had significant outstanding debts, and was still trying to resolve his financial problems. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that those 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 conditions and factors. He found in favor of Applicant as to four of the SOR factual allegations. However, he reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. 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)). “The general standard is that 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). Therefore, the Judge’s 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