CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-06536.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-06536.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06536.a1

May 16, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing himself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant delinquent debts. The judge found the applicant had 13 delinquent debts totaling over $54,000, which included a past-due mortgage and multiple collection accounts.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances, such as demonstrating that the financial issues were beyond his control or presenting a concrete plan to address the outstanding debts. Furthermore, he did not seek financial counseling or show a good-faith effort to satisfy his financial obligations.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, concurring with the judge's assessment that the applicant did not demonstrate responsible management of his financial obligations. The decision underscored the importance of financial responsibility in security clearance determinations.

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 issuedApr 1, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 28, 2011
Decision dateMay 16, 2011

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Determinations
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigating Circumstances Leading to Denial of Clearance

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 financial issues under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's assertions were not corroborated by the evidence and did not demonstrate harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — 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 argued that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision because the findings of fact and conclusions were reasonably supported by the record evidence, and the Judge properly weighed the evidence presented by the Applicant against the disqualifying conduct.

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
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

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 interpretation of the record is not corroborated by the record evidence. Absent such corroboration, Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 09-06536.a1 DATE: 05/16/2011 DATE: May 16, 2011 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-06536

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 April 1, 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 February 28, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant’s financial problems include 13 delinquent debts totaling over $54,000. Applicant’s delinquent indebtedness includes a $12,000 past-due mortgage, seven collection accounts, three charged-off accounts, a judgment and an Internal Revenue Service lien. Applicant’s explanation regarding his first wife’s unsuccessful battle with cancer is insufficient given the chronology of Applicant’s indebtedness and failure to file tax returns until several years after her death. Applicant has not sought counseling. The Judge concluded as follows: The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. He produced no evidence of circumstances beyond his control, and, except for three debts he has not acted responsibly in addressing his debts. He has received no credit or financial counseling, nor has he demonstrated that his financial problems are under control, or that he has a plan to bring them under control. He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his debts. The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant’s appeal relies, in part, on new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant argues that the Judge misconstrued portions of the record evidence and reached erroneous conclusions. In essence, Applicant states that credit reports in evidence are in error, some detailed findings of the Judge regarding his finances are in error, he was truthful to the best of his recollection when testifying, and he has mitigated the government’s case. Applicant’s interpretation of the record is not corroborated by the record evidence. Absent such corroboration, Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge. Applicant cites evidence he maintains supports a granting of his security clearance. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-00278 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2011). In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors. The Judge properly considered the whole pattern of Applicant’s handling of his finances and concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the government’s concerns. The Judge’s findings of fact and his conclusions are reasonably supported by the record evidence. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-02732 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2011). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his 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 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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board