CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06067.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06067.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06067.a1

Oct 22, 2010· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An administrative assistant for a federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from approximately $33,000 in delinquent debts, which included medical bills and credit card balances.

The judge determined that the applicant had not made a good-faith effort to repay these outstanding debts. Furthermore, the judge expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the applicant's proposed plan to resolve her financial obligations within a year.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues were not under control, leading to the denial of her security clearance. This adverse decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Promises to repay debt in the future are not a substitute for a track record of financial responsibility.”
— ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 10, 2010
Decision dateOct 22, 2010

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility
Lack of Good-faith Effort in Repaying Debts
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Insufficient Evidence of Financial Stability

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 security clearance decision based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the decision, finding the applicant's arguments lacked specificity and the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

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’s arguments fail for lack of specificity. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06067.a1 DATE: 10/22/2010 DATE: October 22, 2010 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06067

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 February 26, 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 hearing. On August 10, 2010, after the hearing, 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 issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an administrative assistant for a federal contractor. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, totaling approximately $33,000. These debts are for medical treatment, personal loans, utilities, credit cards, etc. The bulk of these debts originated during 2007 and 2008, when Applicant was not employed. Later in 2008, while she was employed, Applicant was in a car accident, caused by her own fault. She did not pay the resulting medical bills. She has moved in with her mother to save money, and she is looking for a second job. She has sought assistance from a financial counselor, although the budget that was prepared for her was not completely accurate, in that it failed to take into account certain recurring expenses. Her monthly after-tax income is $2,200. In deciding the case adversely to Applicant, the Judge noted her unemployment as a circumstance beyond her control that affected her financial condition. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay her debts and that there is no indication that her financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Applicant has stated that she intends to pay her debts off within a year, but the Judge expressed scepticism as to the feasibility of that plan. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 19, 2008), for the proposition that promises to repay debt in the future are not a substitute for a track record of financial responsibility. Applicant contends that the Judge did not have a full understanding of the case, as a consequence of which the decision was in error. Applicant requests that the case be remanded to another Judge for a new decision, which would give Applicant an opportunity to present evidence not available to her at the previous hearing. Applicant’s contention fails for lack of specificity. For a discussion of the requirement for specificity, see ISCR Case No. 00-0429 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jul. 9, 2001). In this case, the Board can not discern from the brief which evidence is alleged to have been misunderstood, nor what the nature of the misunderstanding was. Furthermore, there is nothing in the transcript or elsewhere in the record to establish or imply that Applicant wanted to present additional evidence. After reviewing the record, we conclude 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 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