CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07584.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-07584.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07584.a1

Oct 2, 2009· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A financial advisor was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to delinquent debts exceeding $50,000. The applicant failed to demonstrate the necessary financial responsibility, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Appeal Board.

Key disqualifying conditions included over $50,000 in outstanding delinquent debts. The applicant did not provide corroborating evidence for claims of debt repayment, and the judge determined that her financial difficulties were not attributable to circumstances beyond her control.

Furthermore, the applicant had not sought credit counseling, and her debt payments were sporadic and undocumented. Ultimately, the applicant did not meet the burden of persuasion for mitigation, resulting in the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJan 15, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 8, 2009
Decision dateOct 2, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility as a Basis for Denial
Lack of Corroboration for Claims of Debt Repayment Affecting Clearance Eligibility

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 for a security clearance who had delinquent debts exceeding $50,000. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider her evidence in mitigation and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and concluding that the applicant did not demonstrate financial responsibility.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's decision fails to consider her evidence in mitigation.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's adverse security clearance decision is 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 Applicant failed to meet her burden of persuasion regarding financial responsibility and mitigation of her debts.

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant, a financial advisor, has delinquent debt in excess of $50,000. The record demonstrates that the Judge considered Applicant’s submissions and reasonably concluded that she had failed to meet her burden of persuasion. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-07584.a1 DATE: 10/02/2009 DATE: October 2, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-07584

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 January 15, 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 Applicant also requests that the decision in her case be delayed six months, presumably leaving the record open so that her situation can be reevaluated. The Board does not have the authority to process such a request. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. See Directive ¶ E2.20(b): “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances[.]” See Directive ¶ E2.20(c): “the person has received or is receiving counseling . . . and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control[.]” See Directive ¶ E2.20(d): “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts[.]” Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On July 8, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr., 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’s decision fails to consider her evidence in mitigation and 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 financial advisor employed by a defense contractor. She previously held a security clearance in 1998 and 1999. Applicant has delinquent debts totaling over $50,000. Applicant claimed to have paid off several of these debts, though she provided no corroboration. She was offered settlement agreements with three creditors, although there is no record evidence that she accepted the offers or paid the debts. She was on maternity leave from April to June of 2001, during which time she experienced a decline of income. She testified that she receives no child support from her child’s father. “Many of the debts she disputes are medical accounts for which she had insurance. However, she did not corroborate her claims that she paid the necessary co-pays and deductibles associated with those expenses. She denies other debts because she does not recognize the creditors, but has not taken into account potential successors-in-interest to the original creditors.” Decision at 2. In deciding the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge stated that her maternity leave of three months was not enough to have caused the financial problems alleged in the SOR and substantiated by the Government. As a consequence, her debts did not result from causes outside her control.2 Furthermore, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s response to her debts has not demonstrated financial responsibility–she has not received credit counseling and her payments have generally not been made in a timely manner. “Whatever efforts she has made to address her poor finances have been sporadic, ineffectual, and largely undocumented. The record does not indicate when, if ever, her financial situation will be settled enough for her to make clear progress on her delinquent debts.” Id. at 4. The record demonstrates that the Judge considered matters which Applicant submitted in her own behalf. However, he reasonably concluded that she had failed to meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation, in light of the age and extent of her debts and the paucity of record evidence as to corrective action regarding them. 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 or continue a security clearance for Applicant” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 5. 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 Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board