CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09058 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09058denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09058

deniedDec 18, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor's executive assistant, a mother of two, was denied a security clearance due to significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,687, which raised questions about her trustworthiness.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant's explanations regarding her debts were not corroborated by evidence, and she failed to provide a credible basis for disputing these obligations. Furthermore, she had not sought financial counseling or demonstrated a consistent track record of responsible financial behavior.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns identified by the judge. The decision highlighted the lack of substantiation for her claims and her failure to establish a pattern of financial responsibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling $13,687.
The applicant's claims regarding her debts were not corroborated.
The applicant failed to provide a credible basis for disputing her debts.
The applicant had not received financial counseling or demonstrated responsible financial behavior.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 8, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 30, 2009
Decision dateDec 18, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Uncorroborated Financial Claims
Importance of Corroborating Evidence in Financial Considerations
Sustainability of Adverse Trustworthiness Determinations Based on Record Evidence

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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: December 18, 2009 In Re: ------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 08-09058

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 trustworthiness designation. On May 8, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness 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 September 30, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge found in Applicant’s favor for one debt, which Applicant demonstrated was not hers. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant works for a federal contractor as an executive assistant. She has two children. Her husband is unemployed and has not worked since 2005. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling $13,687. Although Applicant denied certain debts and claimed that others were paid (either in full or in part), she provided no corroboration for these statements. The Judge considered pertinent mitigating conditions, but she concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion. The Judge noted that, in addition to not corroborating her claims of payment, Applicant had not received financial counseling, had not provided a credible basis for disputing her debts, and had generally failed to demonstrate a track record of responsible action. Applicant cites to a credit report she submitted to the Judge. The Judge noted that that credit report was incomplete, comprising only the first four pages of a 22-page document. It is appropriate for a Judge to assign diminished weight, or no weight at all, to such an exhibit. In support of her appeal Applicant has submitted new matters not contained in the case record, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”). See also ADP Case No. 08-03721 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 28, 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)). In light of the entirety of the record evidence, the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is sustainable.

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination 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