CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-04229.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-04229.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04229.a1

Aug 12, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An administrative assistant for a Defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $44,000 in delinquent debts. The applicant's financial history raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19.

Despite the applicant's claims of financial responsibility, insufficient documentary evidence was provided to substantiate these assertions. Specifically, the applicant failed to offer adequate proof of settlement negotiations or payments made on the debts cited in the Statement of Reasons.

While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were considered, the lack of substantiated evidence for financial responsibility led to the conclusion that granting a clearance would not be consistent with national security interests. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant did not establish a track record of financial responsibility.

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 issuedJan 19, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateAug 12, 2010

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Leading to Adverse Decision
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Considerations

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 decision denying the applicant a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the judge erred in applying mitigating conditions and in the whole-person analysis. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the judge's findings or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's decision was affirmed as the findings were supported by substantial evidence and the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made regarding mitigating conditions and whole-person factors.

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: The Judge found that Applicant did submit documentation of her payments or other efforts at resolving her delinquent indebtedness. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-04229.a1 DATE: 08/12/2010 DATE: August 12, 2010 In Re: ------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-04229

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se Applicant had provided corroborating evidence of payments made on accounts not cited in the SOR. While such evidence is not without probative value, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case it adds little to the case in mitigation.

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On January 19, 2010, 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 May 24, 2010, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman 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 his application of the pertinent mitigating conditions and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an administrative assistant for a Defense contractor. She has attended college but has not received a degree. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts totaling about $44,000. She attributed her financial problems to poor judgement and a lack of understanding. She enrolled in a debt management program but terminated her contract because it was too expensive. Applicant did not provide any documentary proof of settlement negotiations, payment plans, or payments made. In the Analysis portion of the decision, the Judge stated that Applicant had not established a track record of financial responsibility. In her appeal brief, Applicant contends that she has paid off some of her debts and has submitted all the documentation in her possession regarding her debts. However, her presentation on appeal does not undermine the Judge’s adverse findings concerning all but one of the debts alleged in the SOR. Neither does it undermine his statement that Applicant submitted little by way of corroborating evidence, such as evidence of payments made on debts cited in the SOR, settlement agreements, etc. Applicant takes issue with the Judge’s conclusion that insufficient time has passed to demonstrate a track record of debt repayment. However, our review of the record supports this conclusion. 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