CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00970.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00970.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00970.a1

Feb 28, 2012· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing herself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $45,000 in delinquent debts. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding the applicant's proposed repayment plan insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

The board determined that the judge's findings regarding the applicant's substantial financial issues were supported by the evidence presented. Specifically, the presence of significant delinquent debts and the inadequacy of the proposed resolution plan led to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Judge’s findings are based on substantial evidence and are sustainable.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateFeb 28, 2012

Cite For

Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Repayment Plans as a Basis for Denial
Substantial Evidence Standard in Security Clearance Decisions

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 brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were erroneous regarding her repayment efforts and the timing of her repayment plan. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the findings were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowArthur E. Marshall, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in his findings concerning her efforts to pay off two of the alleged debts.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in finding that she had instituted her repayment plan the morning of the hearing.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge’s findings are based on substantial evidence and are sustainable. The adverse decision is affirmed.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
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: The Judge’s findings are based on substantial evidence and are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-00970.a1 DATE: 02/28/2012 DATE: February 28, 2012 In Re: -------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00970

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se 1 For example, “Q: . . . [Y]ou did not finalize–and by ‘finalize’ I mean give your bank information and set up your payment plan with [Credit Counseling Service] until earlier today . . . correct? A: That is correct.” Tr. at 69. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On April 22, 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 hearing. On December 7, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Arthur E. Marshall, Jr., 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’s findings of fact were supported by substantial 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 Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant was discharged in bankruptcy in 2003. Subsequently, she acquired additional delinquent debts, for credit cards, college expenses, telecommunications services, a repossessed vehicle, etc. Cumulatively, these debts are worth approximately $45,000. In a response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant stated that her debts would either be discharged or included in a repayment plan by April 2011. However, the repayment plan which she submitted was not finalized until the day of the hearing, and it included only six of the 24 debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s financial problems were affected by periods of unemployment and by a lack of knowledge about personal finances. In the Analysis, the Judge noted matters outside Applicant’s control which had an impact on her financial condition. He stated that she evidenced a real intent to effectuate her repayment plan. However, he concluded that the plan was not sufficient to address the bulk of Applicant’s delinquent debts and that the record evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that Applicant’s debts were generally the result of her unemployment. Applicant contends that the Judge’s findings contained errors. Specifically, she argues that the Judge erred in his findings concerning her efforts to pay off two of the alleged debts. She also argues that he erred in finding that she had instituted her repayment plan the morning of the hearing. We examine a Judge’s finding to see if the finding is supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. In this case, we conclude that the Judge’s material findings of security concern are based on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn from the record.1 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-05750 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 8, 2011). 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 decision is AFFIRMED. Signed; Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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