CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-10221.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-10221.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-10221.a1

Jan 21, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. These problems arose from a period of unemployment and a marital breakup, leading to several delinquent debts that raised concerns about her judgment and reliability.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to adequately address these delinquent debts for a significant period. Despite her claims of recent efforts to manage her finances, she did not demonstrate a consistent track record of financial responsibility.

Ultimately, the appeal board affirmed the denial of her security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the disqualifying conditions outlined in AG ¶ 19.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial 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 issuedMay 26, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 13, 2009
Decision dateJan 21, 2010

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases
Connection Between Financial Behavior and 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. 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 error in the assessment of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — 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 or mis-weighed significant record evidence.
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 harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision.

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: Although Applicant’s financial problems were affected by unemployment and a marital breakup, she demonstrated no track record of financial responsibility. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 08-10221.a1 DATE: 01/21/2010 DATE: January 21, 2010 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 08-10221

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 26, 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 November 13, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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 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 had several delinquent debts. She acknowledged that Applicant’s financial problems originated in a period of unemployment and from a marital breakup. However, she concluded that Applicant has not demonstrated a track record of financial responsibility. “Applicant has experienced financial difficulties since at least 2005, but she has addressed them only recently. Applicant’s financial problems began when she was a mature adult, and she failed to address her delinquent debts for a significant period, a decision that raises concerns about her judgment and reliability.” Decision at 7. Applicant contends on appeal that the Judge either ignored or mis-weighed significant record evidence, including the circumstances under which she first experienced her financial problems, the extent to which she has paid off debts, and her development of a debt management plan. 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 any event, the Judge’s decision demonstrates that she considered the evidence favorable to Applicant, but that she plausibly explained why she concluded that Applicant had, nevertheless, failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case. 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 national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 8. “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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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