CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09704.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09704.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09704.a1

Mar 31, 2010· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A technical order librarian and retired Air Force member was denied a security clearance primarily due to significant delinquent debts under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial history raised concerns under Disqualifying Condition F.3.

While the applicant claimed to have resolved some debts, the judge found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims or demonstrate a consistent track record of debt repayment. Although Mitigating Conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered, the applicant ultimately failed to provide adequate proof of a sustained effort to address the outstanding financial obligations.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the security concerns related to financial considerations were not sufficiently mitigated, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant did not adequately mitigate the remaining debts.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Financial ProblemsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of effective debt management.

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-00196 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2009)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 29, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 13, 2010
Decision dateMar 31, 2010

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Repayment Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Presumption of Evidence Consideration by Judges

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 filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge ignored favorable evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMary E. Henry — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge ignored evidence which, she believes, demonstrates that she had resolved her medical bills.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues 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 error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge provided a reasonable explanation for her conclusion regarding the Applicant's financial situation and did not ignore evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Jean E. Smallin
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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence. The Judge provided a reasonable explanation for her conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt repayment. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-09704.a1 DATE: 03/31/2010 DATE: March 31, 2010 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-09704

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 May 29, 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 January 13, 2010, 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 ignored record evidence favorable to Applicant and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant is a technical order librarian for a Defense contractor. She retired from the Air Force after twenty years of service, and she has worked as a contractor ever since. She has held a security clearance since the beginning of her Air Force career, without incident or concern. Applicant’s husband is also retired from the Air Force. He worked in the airline industry, suffering a diminution in salary following the September 11, 2001, attacks. He currently performs maintenance work. At the time they married, Applicant’s husband had significant debts. The couple have resolved his debts, though in doing so they neglected Applicant’s. In addition, Applicant and her husband have provided financial assistance to their daughter, who was raising children. Applicant herself has significant delinquent debts, for such things as a car repossession, medical bills, and commercial credit accounts. Although she has paid off some of her debts, the Judge concluded that the remaining ones posed security concerns which Applicant had failed to mitigate. Applicant contends that the Judge ignored evidence which, she believes, demonstrates that she had resolved her medical bills. She believes that the Judge substituted an unfavorable opinion for record evidence. We have examined the Judge’s detailed discussion of Applicant’s medical debts. We find no basis to conclude that her findings on these matters were not based upon substantial record evidence. Furthermore, the conclusions which she drew from these findings were reasonable, principally that the record did not explain the circumstances underlying many of these debts. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not met her burden of persuasion as to mitigation, which was a reasonable interpretation of the record. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record. 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). In this case, the Judge discussed evidence which tended to show that Applicant’s financial problems were, to a certain extent, a result of circumstances outside her control, and that several of her debts had been satisfied, either by having been paid off or having been forgiven by the creditors. However, she also provided a reasonable explanation for her conclusion that Applicant had failed to demonstrate a track record of debt repayment or otherwise mitigate the remaining debts. 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, 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