A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 10-04413.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Feb 16, 2012 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing herself, faced security clearance issues under Guideline F due to significant unresolved debts following a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Despite claims of having paid off some debts and having a repayment plan, the appeal board affirmed the denial of her security clearance, emphasizing the need for financial responsibility consistent with national security interests.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had approximately $36,000 in additional delinquent debt, with over $20,000 unresolved.
- The applicant had no tangible plan to repay her unresolved debts.
- The judge found that the applicant's claims did not sufficiently rebut the presumption that all evidence was considered.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 20(a) Financial Considerationsraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 20(c) Financial Considerationsrejected
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when 'clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.'”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2011-07-05
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2011-12-19 Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
- Decision date
- 2012-02-16 Appeal board affirmed the adverse decision.
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
- The Presumption That Judges Consider All Evidence Presented in a Case
- The Standard for Granting Clearance as Being Consistent with 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
The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable on the record.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant offers an alternative interpretation of the evidence, but it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-04413.a1 DATE: 02/16/2012 DATE: February 16, 2012 In Re: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-04413
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 July 5, 2011, 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 December 19, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge found that Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2005. Since that time, she acquired approximately $36,000 additional delinquent debt, of which more than $20,000 was unresolved as of the close of the record. The debts were for medical bills, utilities, etc. Applicant’s problems were affected by marital problems, job instability, and health issues. The Judge found that Applicant had “no tangible plan to repay” her unresolved debts. Decision at 5. Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence, for example, evidence that she had paid off some of the debts alleged in the SOR, her attempts to settle another debt, her job advancement, and her plan to pay off her debts. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03025 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2012). Applicant’s brief offers an alternative interpretation of the record, but it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. The Judge’s 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). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
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