CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-06875 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-06875denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 08-06875

Oct 29, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A help-desk technician, holding a security clearance since 1998, was denied continued clearance due to significant financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had eleven delinquent debts, totaling $18,988, which raised security concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's failure to adequately address these financial issues. Specifically, the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to corroborate claims of debt repayment, leaving the status of the outstanding debts unclear. Furthermore, the applicant did not seek consumer credit counseling, which could have demonstrated an effort to resolve the financial difficulties.

These factors collectively led to the determination that the applicant's financial situation presented an unacceptable security risk, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

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 issuedFeb 20, 2009
Answer filed—Pro se
Hearing heldAug 20, 2009Decision issued after consideration of the record.
Decision dateOct 29, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Repayment Under Guideline F
Lack of Consumer Credit Counseling as a Factor in Security Clearance Denial
Affirmation of Denial Based on 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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's financial situation and lack of evidence supporting his claims.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — 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 argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion reached.

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
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 29, 2009 In Re: -----

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-06875

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 February 20, 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 decision on the written record. On August 20, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. In addition to presenting new evidence, Applicant’s appeal submission is difficult to follow. Applicant presents a document which he proffers as a re-creation of his response to the FORM (No response to the FORM was received by DOHA). The document discusses nine debts. For one debt, of more than $10,000, Applicant reports having made three or four monthly payments of $225 in 2008 and then having stopped making payments. He then says, “I do not have any current information regarding this debt. Currents status – Debt is paid in full.” Similarly, for the other eight debts he says that no action has been taken to resolve the debts pending his divorce. Nonetheless, for six of the eight debts he then says “Current status – Debt is paid in full.” Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a help-desk technician working for a government contractor. He has held a security clearance since 1998. Applicant has eleven delinquent debts, totaling $18,988. Although he claimed to have paid off some of his debts, he provided no documentation in corroboration. “Nothing in the record establishes that Applicant has sought and received consumer credit counseling.” Decision at 3. In concluding that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion, the Judge noted the lack of record evidence concerning the circumstances giving rise to the debt, as well as a lack of evidence regarding debt repayment. “Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts at the present time as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.” Id. at 6. In support of his appeal, Applicant submits matters not included in the record. For example, he provides evidence of debt settlement occurring after the date of the Judge’s adverse decision. The Board cannot consider this evidence. 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). 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 eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 7. 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: Jeffery D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board