CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-06435.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-06435.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06435.a1

May 17, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. These debts originated from a failed grocery business, and the appeal board upheld the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate financial responsibility and resolve his outstanding obligations.

Key disqualifying conditions included a substantial $68,501 debt owed to the state lottery commission. Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence of payments made to any creditors or any attempts to contact them to address the debts.

Ultimately, the judge found no clear indications that the applicant's financial problems were being resolved or were under control, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that 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 issuedMay 8, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 11, 2010
Decision dateMay 17, 2010

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Significant Delinquent Debts as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Evidence of Debt Resolution

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 who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider favorable evidence and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not consider record evidence favorable to him.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance 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 considered the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant’s brief contends that the Judge did not consider Applicant’s exhibits submitted after the hearing. The Judge’s decision indicates otherwise. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-06435.a1 DATE: 05/17/2010 DATE: May 17, 2010 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-06435

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 May 8, 2009, 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 March 11, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues: whether the Judge failed to consider record evidence favorable to Applicant and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant has applied for a job with a Defense contractor, to serve as a linguist and cultural advisor. He had immigrated to the U.S. from Pakistan in the early 1970sand became a naturalized citizen in the early 1990s. Applicant had significant delinquent debts, including one owed to the state lottery commission for $68,501. He incurred these debts from the mid-1990sto the mid-2000s, when he owned a grocery store. The store failed during an economic downturn. Additionally, Applicant’s store was robbed, which also caused him economic loss. In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted the business downturn, a circumstance beyond Applicant’s control which affected his financial condition. However, the Judge stated that “Applicant offered no evidence that he has made any payments to any creditors. There is no evidence that he has contacted any of his creditors. In short, there is no evidence the Applicant has acted responsibly under the circumstances. There are no clear indications that his financial problem is being resolved or is under control. He has not established financial responsibility.” Decision at 9. Accordingly, the Judge held that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in his case. Applicant’s brief appears to contend that Applicant submitted documents to the Judge after the hearing but that the documents were not considered. However, the Judge’s decision indicates that the documents in question were admitted into evidence. Decision at 2. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009); ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008). 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 adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that 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).

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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board