A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 08-05530
Appeal BoardDecided Oct 16, 2009 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) but was denied due to numerous delinquent debts. The judges found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns, affirming that granting the clearance was not consistent with national security interests.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had numerous delinquent debts.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F.3 Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsraised
Key rule quoted
“A clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2008-12-05
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2009-08-19
- Decision date
- 2009-10-16
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
The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board reviewed the case and found no harmful error, affirming the denial of the security clearance.
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
Appearances
DATE: October 16, 2009 In Re: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-05530
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