CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-00651.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-00651.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-00651.a1

Nov 20, 2009· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts. These debts primarily stemmed from the applicant's efforts to assist family members.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible behavior regarding his financial obligations. This lack of responsible financial conduct was deemed not to be in the national interest.

The decision highlighted Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 19, concluding that the applicant's financial history presented an unacceptable security risk.

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 28, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 8, 2009
Decision dateNov 20, 2009

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Security Clearance Decision Due to Financial Irresponsibility
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Financial Behavior Under Guideline F
National Security Interests as a Standard for Granting Security Clearance

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 erred in applying mitigating conditions and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the law or the facts considered.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in her application of the mitigating conditions.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
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 application of the mitigating conditions and concluded that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the 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

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: The Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible behavior as to a number of his delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-00651.a1 DATE: 11/20/2009 DATE: November 20, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-00651

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 28, 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 September 8, 2009, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 erred in her application of the mitigating conditions 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 numerous delinquent debts, which were caused in part by his decision to assist family members with their own financial problems. For example, he had lent a family member two credit cards, upon which she made substantial charges. Additionally, he permitted another to live in one of his two houses, making the mortgage payments. However, this relative failed to make the payments as promised. Although the Judge found in Applicant’s favor for several of the debts, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible behavior as to the remainder. During the course of the hearing, Applicant admitted to an additional debt not alleged in the SOR. The Judge did not consider this debt “for disqualifying purposes.” However, she stated that she would consider it as an aspect of Applicant’s financial history and as part of her “whole- person” analysis. Decision at 3, n. 5. 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 clearly not in the interests of 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean S. 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