CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-01753 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-01753denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-01753

Dec 18, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had approximately $31,000 in delinquent debts, which were subsequently discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The judges determined that the applicant's financial problems predated her job loss, contradicting her assertions that the job loss was the primary cause of her distress. Furthermore, the recency of her bankruptcy prevented her from establishing a consistent track record of responsible financial conduct.

These factors led to the conclusion that the applicant failed to mitigate the disqualifying conditions under Guideline F, specifically AG ¶ 19. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

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 issuedJun 16, 2009
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself.
Hearing heldOct 8, 2009Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateDec 18, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Despite Claims of Job Loss
Importance of Establishing a Track Record of Responsible Financial Conduct

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations. 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 onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous.
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

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

APPEARANCES

DATE: December 18, 2009 In Re: ------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-01753

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 16, 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 October 8, 2009, after considering the record, 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’s application of the mitigating conditions was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. Applicant asserts that the record evidence shows that her family’s financial troubles were due to loss of employment. She had made such a statement in her security clearance application. However, the Judge correctly observed that the record evidence indicates that Applicant’s financial problems preceded the cited loss of employment. The Judge found that Applicant had approximately $31,000 in delinquent debts, which were discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in mid-2009. The Judge acknowledged that the specific debts alleged in the SOR were no longer owed due to the bankruptcy. She also acknowledged that Applicant’s financial condition was affected by a job loss and pregnancy. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the security concerns in her case. Specifically, the Judge noted the paucity of record evidence explaining the reason for Applicant having amassed the debts in the first place. She also concluded that Applicant had not established a track record of responsible financial conduct, given the relative recency of the bankruptcy at the close of the record. 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 7. “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