CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-07359 — CASE

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 08-07359denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 08-07359

Oct 13, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. These debts included a state tax lien and outstanding medical bills, which were exacerbated by job loss and poor financial management.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting the applicant's failure to seek financial counseling and the absence of a definitive plan to resolve her financial issues. The board emphasized the connection between the applicant's financial problems and national security interests.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the decision highlighting the applicant's ongoing financial instability and lack of a clear path to address her outstanding obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge noted that the applicant's financial problems were partly due to circumstances beyond her control but emphasized poor financial management.

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 issuedFeb 17, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 17, 2009
Decision dateOct 13, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Management in Security Clearance Determinations
Connection Between Financial Issues and 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 misapplied mitigating conditions and mis-weighed evidence. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMary E. Henry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge failed properly to apply the Guideline F mitigating conditions.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge mis-weighed the evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's application of the law or in the weighing of evidence, affirming that the decision was consistent with national security interests.

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 13, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07359

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT James S. DelSordo, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 17, 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 July 17, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mary E. Henry 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 on appeal: whether the Judge failed properly to apply the Guideline F mitigating conditions and whether the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for such matters as a state tax lien, medical bills, credit card bills, and an automobile loan. Her debts were affected by her husband’s loss of employment as well as her own and by the fact that, at the time he managed the household finances, her husband did not keep her apprised of their financial situation. For example, he did not pay their state income taxes for 2003, 2004, and 2005. In deciding the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge took into account the extent to which Applicant’s financial problems were affected by circumstances beyond her control (including job loss and underemployment). However, the Judge also noted that Applicant’s debts arose, in part, due to poor financial management, and that she has not sought financial counseling. The Judge further noted that Applicant continues to struggle with her bills and that she lacks a “definitive plan of action” to address her financial problems. Decision at 8. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence which she believes mitigates the security concerns in her case. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record, and Applicant’s brief is not sufficient to rebut that presumption. 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). Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). 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 the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 9. 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board