Loading case…

ISCR 08-10011.a1: Guideline F security clearance appeal, denied (2009) · CASE

ISCR Case 08-10011.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-10011.a1

Nov 6, 2009· Hon. Michael D. Hipple· appeal

Summary

A federal contractor support specialist and former U.S. Army service member was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. These included outstanding medical expenses and child support obligations.

The judge identified disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19, noting the extent of the applicant's financial problems. While the applicant presented some favorable evidence, including a strong work ethic and attempts to resolve his debts, these efforts were considered recent and insufficient.

Ultimately, the judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c) but determined that the favorable evidence was outweighed by the severity and recency of the financial issues, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe judge found that the applicant's efforts to address his debts were recent and insufficient.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedThe Applicant Has Received Counseling for the ProblemWhile the applicant consulted a financial counselor, he did not enter into a debt repayment plan.

Key rule quoted

“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 27, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 24, 2009
Decision dateNov 6, 2009

Cite for

Evaluation of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Weight of Favorable Evidence Versus Disqualifying Conditions
Standards for Granting Security Clearances in Relation to 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 was from an adverse security clearance decision based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider favorable evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the evidence and the conclusion that granting a clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider favorable evidence.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred in her application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's decision is 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 reasonably concluded that the favorable evidence was outweighed by the extent of the delinquent debts and the recency of the efforts to resolve them.

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

Michael D. Hipple
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: The Judge addressed Applicant’s favorable evidence but reasonably concluded it was outweighed the extent of the delinquent debts and the recency of the efforts to resolve them. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-10011.a1 DATE: 11/06/2009 DATE: November 6, 2009 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-10011

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 27, 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 August 24, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan 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 to consider record evidence favorable to Applicant; whether the Judge erred in her application of the pertinent mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant is a support specialist working for a federal contractor. He has previously served with the U.S. Army, during which time he held a security clearance. Applicant has significant delinquent debts for medical expenses, credit cards, consumer purchases, etc. He owes child support as the result of a previous marriage and has experienced health problems at a time when he did not have health insurance. He also owes back taxes to the IRS from tax year 2003. He has consulted with a financial counselor but has not entered into a debt repayment plan. In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge noted the circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial condition. She also noted his good work record and his record of achievement in the Army. However, she concluded that Applicant had not begun to address his delinquent debts until relatively recently and that, as a consequence, he failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider favorable evidence, such as the extent to which he is attempting to resolve his financial problems and his evidence of his good work ethic and reliability. However, 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 the case under consideration here, the Judge addressed Applicant’s favorable evidence, but she reasonably concluded that it was outweighed by other factors, such as the extent of the delinquent debts and the recency of Applicant’s efforts to resolve them. In light of the Egan standard, the Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable. Decision at 11. See 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 D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple 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