A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-03071.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Mar 2, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to unresolved financial issues, specifically eight debts totaling approximately $247,000. The judge determined that only one debt had been paid, indicating ongoing financial problems, and found that mitigating evidence, including the applicant's wife's illness, was insufficient to outweigh the government's concerns. The decision was affirmed on appeal.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had eight debts totaling approximately $247,000, with only one debt proven to be paid, indicating ongoing financial issues.
- The judge found that the presence of some mitigating evidence did not compel a favorable decision, as the unfavorable evidence outweighed the favorable evidence.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20 Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 21 Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable security clearance decision.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-05-13
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2008-12-31
- Decision date
- 2009-03-02
Cite for
- Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- Insufficient Mitigating Evidence to Overcome Disqualifying Financial Conduct
- The Weighing of Evidence in 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
The appeal was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge reasonably concluded the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and that the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the unfavorable evidence.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant had 8 debts totaling approximately $247,000. The Judge found that of those debts, none have been proven to be paid except the last. Thus, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. The Judge discussed the role Applicant’s wife’s illness played in his financial difficulties. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel a favorable security clearance decision. The Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-03071.a1 DATE: 03/02/2009 DATE: March 2, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-03071
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 May 13, 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 31, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Philip S. Howe 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. In this case, the SOR alleged that Applicant had accumulated 8 debts totaling approximately $247,000. Decision at 2. The Judge found that: “Of those eight debts, none have been proven to be paid except the last listed debt in Paragraph 1.h.” Id. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). The Judge explicitly discussed Applicant’s wife’s illness and the role that played in his recent financial difficulties. 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). An applicant’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). The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the recency and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors. 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)). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board