CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-05530 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-05530denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 08-05530

Oct 16, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. The decision was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by these financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant met disqualifying condition F.3, which pertains to a history of not meeting financial obligations. The judges determined that the applicant did not adequately address the security risks associated with his financial situation.

Ultimately, the judges affirmed that granting a security clearance to the applicant was not consistent with national security interests, leading to the denial of his application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

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 issuedDec 5, 2008
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldAug 19, 2009
Decision dateOct 16, 2009

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Timely Addressing Delinquent Debts
Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

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 seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board reviewed the case and found no error, affirming the denial of the security clearance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts and the choice made.

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
William S. Fields
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

APPEARANCES

DATE: October 16, 2009 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05530

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 December 5, 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 August 19, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Board construes Applicant’s appeal as contending that the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant had numerous delinquent debts. He noted that Applicant did not reply to the file of relevant material or otherwise provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns in his case. Applicant asserts that the file upon which the Judge relied had not been updated in two years. In fact, the Judge cited credit reports from 2009 and 2008, as well as older documents. 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 national security to grant Applicant 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 Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Willaim S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board