CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-08508.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-08508.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-08508.a1

Jan 4, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a significant history of financial instability. This included two previous bankruptcy discharges and twelve delinquent debts totaling approximately $18,000.

The judge identified these issues as disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19. While the applicant claimed her financial difficulties stemmed from uncontrollable circumstances, the judge found the mitigating evidence presented under AG ¶ 20 to be insufficient. Specifically, there was no evidence that she had resolved any of her outstanding debts.

Consequently, the judge determined that the security concerns were not alleviated, and the appeal board affirmed the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found the mitigating evidence insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“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 13, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldSep 6, 2011
Decision dateJan 4, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigation of Financial Issues
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Demonstrate Mitigation of Security Concerns

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 regarding the denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that her financial difficulties were due to circumstances beyond her control. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's reasoning or conclusions.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — 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 decision should be reversed because her financial difficulties stem from bad timing, numerous illnesses and loss of supplemental support.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board concluded 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. The Judge's unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

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
Jean E. Smallin
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 had two previous discharges in bankruptcy and twelve delinquent debts currently. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 10-08508.a1 DATE: 01/04/2012 DATE: January 4, 2012 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-08508

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 13, 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 that the case be decided on the written record. On September 6, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Applicant contends that the Judge’s adverse decision should be reversed because her financial difficulties stem from bad timing, numerous illnesses and loss of supplemental support. Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate that the Judge erred in reaching his adverse decision.

Once the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to establish mitigation. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. 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. 10-08308 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 3, 2011). In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy history of not meeting financial obligations. In 1996 and 2005, she had received Chapter 7 discharges in bankruptcy. At the time the case was submitted for decision, she had 12 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $18,000, from collection or charged-off accounts, and had presented no documentary evidence showing that she had paid, settled, reduced the balance owed, or otherwise resolved those debts. Decision at 2-3 and 5-7. The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct, and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors. He noted that Applicant’s financial problems were due, in part, to the various circumstances she had explained, and that those circumstances were largely beyond her control. He also noted that she was making some effort, via financial counseling, to put her financial house in order. However, the Judge reasonably explained why that mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns in light of the totality of the record evidence. Id. at 6-7. The Board does not review a case de novo. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes 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 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). The Judge’s 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: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board