CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-04023.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-04023.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-04023.a1

Apr 3, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $11,000 in delinquent debts. The Board affirmed this denial, finding it consistent with national security interests.

Despite steady employment and a monthly surplus after expenses, the applicant failed to demonstrate a concrete plan to resolve his financial issues. The numerous delinquent debts, exceeding $11,000, were identified as a disqualifying condition.

While the applicant's steady employment and surplus income were considered as a mitigating condition, it was ultimately insufficient. The applicant did not demonstrate the ability or intent to remedy his financial issues, leading to the final denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's financial problems did not result from causes beyond his 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 issuedAug 21, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 30, 2009
Decision dateApr 3, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Demonstration of Intent to Resolve Financial Issues
Limitations on Submitting New Evidence During Appeal Process

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 under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that he had not mitigated his financial issues. The Board found no harmful error and affirmed the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in concluding that he had not mitigated his Guideline F security concerns.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's conclusion regarding the Applicant's financial concerns and affirmed the adverse decision.

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
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 DIGEST: The Board does not have the authority to grant Applicant’s request for an opportunity to submit new evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-04023.a1 DATE: 04/03/2009 DATE: April 3, 3009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-04023

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 August 21, 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 January 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his conclusion that Applicant had not mitigated his Guideline F security concerns. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, in excess of $11,000. He has been employed steadily since 2001, although his fiancé, with whom he lives, has experienced job layoffs in the recent past. Applicant and his fiancé have over $700 left over each month after expenses. In the Conclusions section of his decision, the Judge noted that Applicant is aware of his financial problems and has the apparent means to remedy them. However, Applicant has not demonstrated that he will actually do so. The Judge noted that Applicant’s debts are recent and that, despite his fiance’s unemployment, they did not result from causes beyond Applicant’s control. “[T]here is insufficient information for me to conclude that Applicant has satisfied the doubts about his suitability for a clearance raised by his debts.” Decision at 5. Applicant has requested an opportunity to submit new matters not contained in the record. The Board has no authority to grant that request. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009). Applicant expressed disagreement with the manner in which the Judge weighed the evidence, e. g., an exhibit showing a debt repayment plan. However, 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 ins 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). 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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. 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