CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-01538.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-01538.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-01538.a1

Jul 21, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The primary issue was nearly $15,000 in delinquent debt, which the applicant largely attributed to her husband's unemployment.

The judge identified Disqualifying Condition F.3, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations. While Mitigating Conditions F.2 (good-faith efforts to resolve debt) and E.2 (voluntary reporting of adverse information) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that her financial problems were being resolved or were under control. The judge found substantial evidence of ongoing financial issues, concluding that granting the clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge concluded that the applicant did not show her financial problems were being resolved.
E.2rejectedThe Person Has Taken Positive Steps to Reduce or Eliminate Financial ProblemsThe applicant failed to demonstrate that her financial issues were under control.

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 issuedNov 19, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 21, 2009
Decision dateJul 21, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
Impact of Spouse's Unemployment on Financial Stability
Criteria for Evaluating National Security Interests in 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 financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were unsupported by evidence and that the Judge misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings of fact were not supported by substantial record evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge erred in the application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's material findings of security concern were supported by substantial record evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

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; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge found that Applicant’s debts were caused in large measure by her husband’s unemployment. However , the Judge also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated that her financial problems were being resolved or were under control. The Judge’s findings are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-01538.a1 DATE: 07/21/2009 DATE: In Re: ------------------------------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-01538

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline F, subparagraphs 1(a), (e), (g-k), and under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 19, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 21, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed 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 were supported by substantial record evidence; whether the Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous.1 Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant, an employee of a defense contractor, had acquired nearly $15,000 in delinquent debt since 2004. The debts were for such things as telephone services, groceries, and a breached rental agreement. The Judge found that the debts were caused in large measure by Applicant’s husband’s unemployment. However, he also concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated that her financial problems were being resolved or were under control. The Board concludes that 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.”) After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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 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 7. See also 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.’”)

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