CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01368.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01368.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01368.a1

Apr 23, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility. The applicant had nine delinquent debts, which he acknowledged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Despite being continuously employed since 2008, the applicant had not resolved these debts or demonstrated a commitment to financial responsibility.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to address his outstanding financial obligations. The applicant's arguments, which focused on potential future actions rather than current resolutions, were deemed insufficient to overturn the judge's findings.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not presented adequate evidence of financial responsibility to mitigate the concerns raised under Guideline F.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial 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 issuedJun 12, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 25, 2010
Decision dateApr 23, 2010

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Substantial Evidence of Financial Issues

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 his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not supported by evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's finding that he had not paid any debts was not supported by evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts and the conclusions drawn.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: Although there is record evidence that Applicant had paid some debts listed in his credit report, the Judge’s statement that Applicant had not paid even one of his debts is sustainable as it pertains to the debts cited in the SOR. Arguments that rely on events which have not yet occurred do not demonstrate error by the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-01368.a1 DATE: 04/23/2010 DATE: April 23, 2010 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01368

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 June 12, 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 25, 2010, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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 certain of the Judge’s findings of fact were supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant’s SOR lists nine delinquent debts, each of which he admits. The debts are for medical treatment, student loans, a repossessed vehicle, etc. Applicant has experienced unemployment for various periods between 2005 and 2008. He has hired an attorney to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in his behalf. The Judge considered the effect which Applicant’s unemployment had on his financial condition, and she also considered his intention to file for bankruptcy. However, she also noted that Applicant had been constantly employed since 2008 and yet had done little to resolve his debts. She concluded that, at the close of the record, Applicant had “not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or that he [had] resolved his financial indebtedness.” Decision at 5. Accordingly, she concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his delinquent debts. Applicant challenges the factual sufficiency of the Judge’s statement that he had not satisfied “even one of his debts.” Decision at 6. This statement appears in her whole-person analysis. The record contains evidence that certain of the debts listed in Applicant’s credit report had been satisfied. However, Applicant’s admissions to the SOR and the record evidence, including evidence which he submitted himself, demonstrate that the debts alleged in the SOR were not satisfied as of the close of the record. We conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are based upon substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”) Applicant’s appeal arguments rely to a significant degree on the occurrence of events in the future. Such arguments do not demonstrate error by the Judge. 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,’” both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 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: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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