CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-02045.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-02045.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-02045.a1

Nov 2, 2009· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A 27-year-old high school graduate and mother was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from numerous delinquent debts totaling over $26,000, which were identified as a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 20.

The judge determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant's debts were being resolved. Furthermore, the applicant lacked a concrete plan to address her significant financial issues.

Ultimately, the Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant had not provided adequate mitigating evidence to overcome the financial concerns raised by her outstanding debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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 12, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateNov 2, 2009

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Lack of a Concrete Plan to Resolve Delinquent Debts
Affirmation of Denial Based on 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 significant delinquent debt. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board reviewed the case and affirmed the denial, finding no harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRita C. O’Brien — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no error in the Judge's decision, affirming that the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the adverse decision based on the evidence presented.

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns arising from her significant delinquent debt. The Board has no authority to grant Applicant’s request for an interim clearance to be followed by a review of her credit in one year. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-02045.a1 DATE: 11/02/2009 DATE: November 2, 2009 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-02045

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 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 decision on the written record. On August 19, 2009, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a 27-year-old high school graduate. She has a three-year-old son. She and her husband have separated, and he has provided little by way of child support. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts. Those debts which the Judge found against Applicant total over $26,000. The debts are for such things as medical expenses, utility payments, charge accounts, telecommunication services, etc. In concluding that Applicant had failed to meet her burdens of persuasion, the Judge cited a paucity of record evidence that the debts were being resolved and stated that she has “no real plan in place” to resolve them. Decision at 7. In her appeal, Applicant submits what appears to be new evidence not contained in the record concerning a repayment plan for one of her creditors. The Board cannot consider new evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board”). See also ISCR Case No. 08-06518 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 3, 2009). Applicant requests an interim security clearance be issued and her credit be reviewed after one year. The Appeal Board does not have the authority to grant the relief requested. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-05372 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 26, 2008). 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 considered evidence favorable to Applicant, such as her marital separation and her evidence of good character. However, the Judge plausibly explained why Applicant’s evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by her history of delinquent debt. The Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to allow Applicant access to classified information” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 9. See also Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”).

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