CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-04413.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-04413.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-04413.a1

Feb 16, 2012· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the need for financial responsibility consistent with national security interests.

Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 20(a) were raised, specifically concerning approximately $36,000 in additional delinquent debt, with over $20,000 remaining unresolved. The applicant had no tangible plan to repay these outstanding debts.

While mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(c) were applied, the judge found that the applicant's claims of having paid off some debts and having a repayment plan did not sufficiently rebut the presumption that all evidence was considered. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of having paid off some debts and having a repayment plan were insufficient.

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 issuedJul 5, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 19, 2011Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateFeb 16, 2012Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for 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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMarc E. Curry — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision is 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 that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo 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 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

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 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