CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01418.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01418.a1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01418.a1

Apr 23, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The primary issue involved a delinquent credit card debt of $14,000, which the applicant subsequently settled for $3,500.

The judge determined that the applicant demonstrated sufficient financial responsibility and discretion. Key factors in this favorable decision included the successful settlement of the delinquent debt for a reduced amount. Additionally, the judge found that the applicant possessed ample discretionary income, indicating a capacity to manage her finances effectively.

Crucially, there was no other record evidence suggesting any further financial problems. The appeal board affirmed the favorable decision, concluding that the applicant's financial management, despite the past debt, met the standards for granting a security clearance.

Key Rule Quoted

“The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 22, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 20, 2010Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateApr 23, 2010Appeal board affirmed the favorable decision.

Cite For

Affirmation of Favorable Decision Despite Prior Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Consideration of Discretionary Income in Financial Responsibility Assessments
Sustainability of a Judge's Decision Despite Disagreement on Evidence Interpretation.

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 a security clearance decision where the applicant had one delinquent debt, which was settled. The Department Counsel appealed the favorable decision, arguing that the Judge's credibility determination and decision were arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusions.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — granted the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
Department Counsel argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Credibility determination — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Rejected
Department Counsel contended that the Judge substituted a favorable credibility determination for record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the findings and conclusions were sufficient to support the favorable security clearance decision.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealReduced credibility deference (written record)

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
William S. Fields

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 had one delinquent debt alleged in the SOR, a credit card debt for $14,000. That debt has since been settled with payment to the creditor of $3,500. Favorable decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-01418.a1 DATE: 04/23/2010 DATE: April 23, 2010 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01418

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 22, 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 January 20, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Department Counsel appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge substituted a favorable credibility determination for record evidence; and whether the Judge’s 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. She had one delinquent debt as of the date of the SOR, a credit card account with a balance of approximately $14,000. Applicant has since settled the sole debt cited in the SOR by paying the creditor $3,500. Department Counsel’s arguments focus on the Judge’s findings regarding the history of the now settled debt. Department Counsel makes some important points, for example a credibility determination based on the written record is not entitled to the same deference on appeal as a credibility determination based on observation of a witness’s demeanor. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-12680 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2007). Also, Applicant’s failure to monitor her mother’s use of her credit card and to address delinquencies promptly provide evidence of questionable judgment. However, not all the Judge’s findings were challenged. The findings described above were unchallenged. Moreover, the Judge’s conclusions that Applicant satisfied the debt, has ample discretionary income to manage her finances and there is no record evidence indicating any other financial problems were not challenged on appeal. These findings and conclusions are sufficient to support the Judge’s favorable security clearance decision. Accordingly, we conclude that the Judge’s decision is sustainable. “The Board need not agree with a Judge’s decision in order to find it sustainable.” ISCR Case No. 06-23881 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2, 2007). Furthermore, it is well-settled that a party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-05344 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 3, 2010).

ORDER

The Judge’s favorable 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: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board