CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-06672.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-06672.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-06672.a1

Jul 8, 2011· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A retired Army veteran, employed as a force protection officer, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unresolved delinquent debts. The applicant cited financial hardship resulting from unemployment and divorce as contributing factors to these issues.

However, the judge found insufficient evidence that the applicant had taken concrete steps to resolve or manage the outstanding debts. For most of the delinquent accounts, no proof of payment or dispute was provided. The applicant's claims of hardship were not substantiated by actions taken to address the financial obligations.

Ultimately, the judge noted that the applicant's promises to resolve the debts had not been acted upon. Despite the application of mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3, the presence of disqualifying condition F.3, coupled with the lack of demonstrated debt resolution, led to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate how his circumstances caused his financial issues.
F.3rejectedThe Person Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Has Otherwise Resolved DebtsThe applicant did not provide evidence of good faith efforts to resolve debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence.”
— ISCR Case No. 10-01168 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2011)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 9, 2010
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 10, 2011
Decision dateJul 8, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Clearance Denial
Importance of National Security Over Personal Circumstances in Clearance Determinations.

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 failed to consider significant evidence and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge failed to consider or mis-weighed significant record evidence.
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 found that the Judge considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, maintaining a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion reached.

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

Jeffrey D. Billett
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: A Judge is presumed to have considered all the record evidence. In this case the Judge explicitly addressed the evidence cited by Applicant on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-06672.a1 DATE: 07/08/2011 DATE: July 8, 2011 In Re: ----- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-06672

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 November 9, 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 May 10, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Robert Robinson Gales 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, or mis- weighed, significant record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the decision of the Judge. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant works for a Defense contractor as a force protection and physical security officer. He served in the Army from 1981 until he retired in 2003. He is divorced and has no children. Applicant has financial problems, which originated somewhere between 2003 and 2005. He has attributed his financial problems to periods of unemployment and his divorce. He stated to OPM that “he always found himself struggling to pay his bills . . .” Decision at 3. He would often use credit cards to pay bills but would find himself unable to pay off his credit cards. At some point, his debts became delinquent. Some were placed for collection, others were charged off. Additionally, he had an automobile repossessed. The SOR lists 11 delinquent debts, for medical expenses, credit cards, telephone services, etc. Although the Judge resolved two of the debts in Applicant’s favor, he noted that, as regards the remaining ones, Applicant provided no evidence that he had paid the debts, disputed them, or contacted the creditors. The repossession was the result of the lease of an automobile. At the end of the term, he attempted to return the car but was advised that he owed additional money because he had exceeded his contractual maximum mileage. “Applicant got angry, refused to pay the balance, and challenged the leasing company to come get the vehicle.” Decision at 6. Although he claimed that he had settled the account, he provided no corroboration. In 2003, Applicant’s wife consulted a credit counseling service that set up a plan for the couple whereby they would pay $190 per month. However, Applicant discontinued the payments when he lost his job and his marriage broke up. Otherwise he has never received any formal counseling, debt management guidance, etc. Applicant received numerous awards and citations during his military career. “One of his Army Achievement Medals was for ‘an exceptionally courageous act in the face of grave danger.’” Decision at 7. Officials at Applicant’s place of employment have a very high opinion of Applicant’s reliability, work ethic, and trustworthiness. In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge noted Applicant’s unemployment and divorce, which were circumstances beyond his control. However, the Judge went on to observe that Applicant had not demonstrated how these events actually caused his financial problems. For example, Applicant has received his military retirement pay as well as disability pay, even while unemployed. The Judge stated that Applicant’s “plan is to eventually resolve his delinquent accounts, and he has repeatedly promised to do so. Unfortunately, his promises have not been turned into action, and he has not contacted 9 of his 11 SOR creditors.” Decision at 12. Accordingly, the Judge denied Applicant a security clearance. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider evidence favorable to him, such as his efforts at debt repayment, his excellent military record, his laudatory character references, his good security record, and evidence that he risked his life in the performance of his duties. These were matters which the Judge was required to consider, along with all the other record evidence. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-01168 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2011). In the case at issue here, the Judge addressed these matters explicitly. However, his explanation as to why the favorable evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns arising from Applicant’s financial problems is reasonable, given the record that was before him. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence. Neither has he demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant states that, if he loses his clearance, his employment will be imperiled. However, the effect that an unfavorable decision may have on an applicant is not relevant or material to a security clearance determination. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-07528 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2009). 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.’” 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). 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 determination is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett 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