CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00786.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00786.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00786.a1

Jan 12, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 37-year-old high school graduate was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant financial issues. The applicant had 12 delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $22,089, which raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence to demonstrate responsible financial behavior. The financial difficulties were found to be ongoing rather than isolated incidents, further contributing to the denial.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to resolve these financial concerns or present adequate evidence of responsible management led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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 harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldOct 26, 2011Administrative Judge denied the request for a security clearance.
Decision dateJan 12, 2012Appeal board affirmed the denial.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Mitigating Evidence Regarding Financial Issues
Disagreement with the Judge's Weighing of Evidence Does Not Demonstrate Harmful Error

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 considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the weighing of evidence and concluding that the applicant did not provide sufficient mitigating evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge properly weighed the evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for her decision, demonstrating a rational connection between the facts and the choice made. The Judge's unfavorable decision was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

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

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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: 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 harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-00786.a1 DATE: 01/12/2012 DATE: January 12, 2012 In Re: ------------ Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00786

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 June 15, 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 October 26, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable decision. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is 37 years old, a high school graduate and single. Applicant’s SOR alleges 12 delinquent accounts with an approximate total balance of $ 22, 089. Applicant has paid three debts worth $172. He recently executed a repayment plan for six debts worth $11,891. He did not provide evidence of initial payments under the plan. He asserted that three debts worth in excess of $10,000 are duplicate but failed to provide corroborating evidence. He has not obtained credit counseling. He did not provide any reference letters or copies of his performance evaluations for consideration of his trustworthiness, good judgment or reliability. The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant’s financial situation continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. He provided some evidence that the financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control but he did not demonstrate that he behaved responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant’s financial difficulties are ongoing and not isolated. Applicant did not provide sufficient mitigating evidence to establish that he is resolving his delinquent accounts and that he is taking steps to prevent future financial problems. Applicant’s appeal brief contains several documents which were not submitted to the Administrative Judge. These constitute new evidence, which the Board cannot consider. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board interprets the remaining portions of Applicant’s brief as assertions of fact in support of a case for mitigation. 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. 10-07138 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2011). In this case, the Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and applied relevant conditions. She explained why the disqualifying conduct established under Guideline F was not sufficiently mitigated. 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 her 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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board