CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07012.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07012.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07012.a1

Apr 4, 2011· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee, holding a college degree and having served in the U.S. Navy Reserve, was denied a security clearance. The denial was based on Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), citing unresolved financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant had delinquent debts and a history of bankruptcy. The judge found that the applicant's claims regarding financial difficulties were not substantiated, and there was a lack of evidence for financial counseling or established repayment plans. These issues aligned with Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 20 and AG ¶ 15.

The appeal board affirmed the adverse decision, upholding the judge's credibility determination. The board emphasized the paramount importance of national security interests in its decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedAug 17, 2010
Answer filed—Applicant represented herself pro se.
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record.
Decision dateApr 4, 2011Appeal board affirmed the decision.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
Importance of Substantiating Claims in Financial Considerations
Credibility Determinations Upheld When Applicant Does Not Provide Sufficient Evidence

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 based on financial considerations and personal conduct. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to properly weigh evidence and misapplied mitigating conditions. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to properly weigh or consider the information she provided regarding her debts.
Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous.
Whole-person analysis — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant claimed that the Judge's whole-person analysis was erroneous.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not provide sufficient reason to disturb the Judge's credibility determination or the application of mitigating conditions.

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

Jean E. Smallin
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; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant did not reply to the File of Relevant Material. Applicant has not provided a reason to disturb the Judge’s credibility determination. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 09-07012.a1 DATE: 04/04/2011 DATE: April 4, 2011 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-07012

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 August 17, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 8, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 failed to consider all of the record evidence or mis-weighed the evidence; whether the Judge’s application of the pertinent mitigating conditions was erroneous; and whether the Judge’s whole-person analysis was erroneous. Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge found that Applicant is an employee of a Defense contractor. She has an undergraduate college degree. She has served in the U.S. Navy Reserve since 2001 and has held a security clearance since 2003. Applicant was discharged twice in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in 1992 and again in 1998. She has delinquent debts for vehicle repossessions and for a credit card. She did not corroborate her claims that certain of her alleged debts were repeats of others. She has blamed her financial problems on the seasonal nature of her husband’s employment and on the general economic climate. Applicant did not submit evidence of regular payment plans or receipts for payment except for one debt. Her monthly income in 2010 was $3,313, with a net remainder after expenses of $850. In the Analysis portion of the her decision, the Judge states that Applicant did not fully explain how her husband’s employment circumstances impacted the family finances. Neither did Applicant provide evidence of debt payment or repayment plans. Applicant failed to provide evidence of financial counseling. Given this paucity of record evidence, the Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Decision at 7. Applicant contends that the Judge did not properly weigh, or failed to consider, the information she provided in her response to the SOR and in her reply to DOHA interrogatories regarding the duplicative nature of some of her debts as well as her efforts to repay them. In doing so, she appears to challenge the Judge’s credibility determination. However, Applicant chose to have the case decided on the written record, with the result that her credibility could not be evaluated in the context of a hearing. Moreover, she did not reply to the Government’s File of Relevant Material. See ISCR Case No. 07-14151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 10, 2008). Applicant’s appeal does not provide a reason to disturb the Judge’s credibility determination. Furthermore, the Judge acknowledged Applicant’s statements to the effect that some of the SOR debts were repeats of others. However, the Judge’s comment that Applicant had “not provided documentation to support the claim” is consistent with the record that was before her. Decision at 3. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. See ISCR Case No. 09-03760 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2010). The record supports a conclusion 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, 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