CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-05348.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-05348.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-05348.a1

Apr 2, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 29-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, primarily due to a history of financial instability and a lack of demonstrated responsible financial behavior. The Administrative Judge upheld the denial, citing specific disqualifying conditions.

Key issues included two prior bankruptcies that were dismissed in 2006, followed by a third bankruptcy filing in May 2008. The applicant did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate a pattern of responsible financial management since these events.

Furthermore, the applicant raised claims of procedural issues, but these were deemed ambiguous and lacked supporting evidence. Consequently, the Administrative Judge affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.'”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 31, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateApr 2, 2009

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Evidence in Financial Cases
Ambiguity in Procedural Claims Not Sufficient for Appeal

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 concerned the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were unsupported and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowHenry Lazzaro — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that certain findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's unfavorable decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Administrative Judge's decision, affirming that the findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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: To the extent that Applicant’s appeal does not rely on impermissible new evidence it is ambiguous. Applicant was advised in writing of her procedural rights and opportunities with a File of Relevant Material. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-05348.a1 DATE: 04/02/2009 DATE: April 2, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05348

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 31, 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 decision on the written record. On January 30, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro 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 issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact are supported by substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found Applicant is 29 years old and had two bankruptcies dismissed in 2006. Applicant filed for bankruptcy in May 2008 and reports that she is currently making payments. The Judge noted the lack of corroborating evidence or evidence to show that Applicant had conducted herself in a responsible manner. We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. 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.”) In support of her appeal, Applicant asserts that she provided all the information requested and “was advised not to provide more information than requested.” Arguably his claim constitutes new evidence not contained in the record, which the Board cannot consider. “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.” Directive ¶ E3.1.29. However, to the extent that we can consider the claim, it is ambiguous. There is no indication as to whether the advice was alleged to have come from an employee of DOHA. In any case, a review of the record shows that Applicant was sent a copy of the record to be considered by the Judge, along with a cover letter dated November 7, 2008, which advised her that “Before the file is sent to the Administrative Judge, you have an opportunity to review the attached copy of the complete file and to submit ant material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider or any objection you may have to the attached file material.” It also said “If you do not file any objections to the attached material or submit any additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter, your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely on the attached file of relevant material.” The record demonstrates that Applicant submitted no objections or additional information. Her case was processed accordingly. The record provides no basis to conclude that Applicant was denied the due process afforded by the Directive. The Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision. 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 or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 6. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board