CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09511.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09511.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09511.a1

Mar 3, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A U.S. Defense contractor employee, a former Marine Corps member, was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from over $26,000 in delinquent debts, for which the applicant had not established a payment plan.

Specifically, the applicant had made no recent payments on these various outstanding debts. The appeal board upheld the initial denial, finding no errors in the judge's comprehensive "whole-person" analysis.

The board concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated permanent changes in behavior regarding debt resolution, leading to the affirmation of the denial.

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 issuedJul 15, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 28, 2009Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateMar 3, 2010Appeal board affirmed the adverse decision.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Affirmation of Whole-person Analysis Compliance with Directive
Failure to Establish a Payment Plan for Debt Resolution as a Basis for Denial

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 was regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's analysis was erroneous and the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no error in the Judge's analysis and reasoning.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowWilford H. Ross — 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 whole-person analysis was erroneous and that the adverse decision was 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 Judge's whole-person analysis complied with the required standards and that the adverse decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

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

Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin
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 has various delinquent debts, has made no recent payments and has not established a plan for doing so. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09511.a1 DATE: 03/03/2010 DATE: March 3, 2010 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09511

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 July 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 Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On December 28, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross 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 whole-person analysis was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1998 to 2003. He had numerous delinquent debts for such things as cable services, telephone services, repossessed automobiles, and a military relief service. His debts totaled over $26,000. As of the close of the record, Applicant had made no recent payments on these debts, nor had he established a plan for doing so. In resolving the decision adverse to Applicant, the Judge concluded, inter alia, that Applicant’s ongoing debts were recent and that he had not demonstrated permanent changes in behavior favorable to debt resolution. We have considered Applicant’s assignments of error in light of the entire record. We conclude that the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ E2.2.1, in that the Judge considered the totality of Applicant’s conduct in reaching his decision. See ISCR Case No. 05-03948 at 3-4 (App. Bd. May 21, 2007); ISCR Case No. 04-09959 at 6 (App. Bd. May 19, 2006). Applicant’s appeal brief contains information concerning Applicant’s current job responsibilities, the reasons for his discharge from the Marine Corps, and his family circumstances. To the extent that this information provides details not contained in the record, we cannot consider it. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). See also ISCR Case No. 08-06875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009) and ISCR Case No. 08- 06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009). After reviewing the record, we conclude 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board