CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-03476.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-03476.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-03476.a1

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

Summary

A defense contractor with prior military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to multiple delinquent debts and inconsistent statements about his financial status. Disqualifying conditions included numerous overdue debts, such as a state tax lien and medical expenses, and a lack of candor regarding their status.

The judge noted that the applicant's debt repayments only began after the Statement of Reasons was issued, suggesting a reactive rather than proactive approach to financial responsibility. While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d) and AG ¶ 20(e) were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the security concerns.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, emphasizing the applicant's lack of credibility and the necessity for his financial conduct to align clearly with national security interests. The overall finding was that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence of mitigation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of timely repayment of debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's claims of mitigating factors were not credible or corroborated.

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 issuedDec 5, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 17, 2012
Decision dateDec 12, 2012

Cite For

Inconsistent Statements Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Corroborating Evidence of Debt Repayment
The Importance of Credibility in Financial Mitigation Cases

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 a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge did not adequately consider mitigating evidence regarding his debts and personal history. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowPaul J. Mason — 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 did not consider his evidence regarding debt repayment and his service record.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge made explicit findings regarding the evidence presented and that the Applicant did not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all evidence. The adverse decision was affirmed based on the lack of sufficient mitigation of financial concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionDeference 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: The Judge made explicit findings about the mitigating evidence cited by Applicant. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-03476.a1 DATE: 12/12/2012 DATE: December 12, 2012 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-03476

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR)1 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 September 17, 2012, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Paul J. Mason 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 considered all of the record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s decision. The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant works for a Defense contractor. He has held a security clearance since 1996. He served in the Army, the National Guard, and the Reserves from 1996 until 2007. He was deployed to combat zones several times during his military service. He is married, and his wife is expecting a child. He has another child from a previous marriage. As a child, Applicant was abandoned by his parents and became a ward of the state. He lived with about 10 foster families until he was 18 and joined the military. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, for a state tax lien, an apartment rental agreement, medical expenses, an automobile loan, etc. Some of these debts have been paid, though after Applicant’s receipt of the SOR or after the hearing. The Judge cited to inconsistent statements Applicant made about some of his debts. For example, concerning the car loan, Applicant advised in an interrogatory response that the car had been totaled and the debt paid off. At the hearing, he testified that the loan was not his and had been obtained in his name due to identity theft. In an interrogatory response he averred that he had paid the tax lien as of July 2011. Documentary evidence later demonstrated that the lien had actually been paid in February 2012. He also provided inconclusive information about a $367 debt that he described either as an overdue library book or a fine for neglecting to register a car. The Judge found that Applicant had failed to corroborate some of his statements about his efforts to address his debts. He did note that two of the debts alleged in the SOR had been removed from Applicant’s credit report. Applicant enjoys a good reputation for his job performance. He is certified as a security information specialist. The Judge noted that the letters commending Applicant’s job performance used the same wording, although the letterheads, dates, and contact information differ. The Judge found that the identical wording of the letters reduced their probative weight. In the Analysis, the Judge cited to Applicant’s inconsistent and false statements, his lack of corroborating information, and the relative recency of his repayments despite the financial ability to have done so long before. Indeed, the Judge stated that Applicant’s four repaid debts had been satisfied only after he had received the SOR. Under the circumstances, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider his evidence that (1) some of his debts had been repaid; (2) two of the debts had been removed from Applicant’s credit report; (3) he had served his country in combat zones; and (4) he had undergone a difficult childhood. Applicant also cited to his character evidence and to the lack of evidence of security violations or of trouble with the law. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07219 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012). The Judge made explicit findings about the evidence Applicant has cited and discussed much of this evidence in his Analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Applicant’s brief cites to some Hearing Office cases which, he contends, support his efforts to obtain a clearance. We have given these cases due consideration. However, Hearing Office decisions are not mandatory authority for other Hearing Office Judges or the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-08099 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 14, 2012). Moreover, Applicant’s case has significant differences from those cited in the brief, notably the Judge’s conclusions about Applicant’s credibility. The cited cases do not demonstrate that the Judge erred in his adverse decision. 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 decision 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

FOOTNOTES

1 The SOR is not dated. Applicant’s Response to the SOR is dated December 5, 2011.