CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-06688.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-06688.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-06688.a1

Jul 5, 2012· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor employee with an associate's degree was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which raised significant security concerns.

Additionally, the applicant had multiple delinquent debts, including tax liens, indicating a pattern of financial irresponsibility. The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation regarding the criminal conduct and inadequate mitigation of the financial issues.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, specifically noting the limited time that had passed since the conviction and the applicant's failure to sufficiently address the outstanding financial concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
FraisedFinancial Considerations

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 7, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 20, 2012
Decision dateJul 5, 2012

Cite For

Security Concerns Under Guideline J Due to Criminal Conduct
Financial Issues Under Guideline F Due to Delinquent Debts
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation and Mitigation in Security Clearance 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 an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to a criminal conviction and financial issues. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and properly reasoned.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert Robinson Gales — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline JGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

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's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, demonstrating a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Judge's adverse decision was sustainable on the record, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the Judge's weighing of the evidence was arbitrary or capricious.

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

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 J; Guideline F DIGEST: In 2011, Applicant pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Sh is subject to tax liens. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-06688.a1 DATE: 07/05/2012 DATE: July 5, 2012 In Re: --------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-06688

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 December 7, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 20, 2012, 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 issue on appeal: 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 is an employee of a Defense contractor, seeking to obtain a security clearance for the first time. She holds an associate’s degree. Applicant is currently married. She has two daughters from a previous marriage. In 2011, Applicant pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. She was sentenced to 24 months in jail, suspended; two years supervised probation; completion of a parenting class; participation in individual or family counseling; and court costs. Moreover, the court ordered her to have no contact with her younger child until deemed appropriate by her therapist or the court and to have no contact with her older child until deemed appropriate by the court or until the child turns 18. The case arose from Applicant’s relationship with a registered sex offender who made sexual advances to Applicant’s younger child. Applicant has a number of delinquent debts, for medical expenses, credit cards, etc. Applicant went through a divorce in 2002 and later that year filed for bankruptcy, which cleared up her existing debts. However, within a few years she acquired more which included tax liens. In the Analysis, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns under Guidelines J and F. He stated that it had been less than a year between Applicant’s conviction and the close of the record, an insufficient amount of time to demonstrate rehabilitation. He also stated that Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the Financial Considerations concern. He concluded that she had never adequately explained why she could not keep up with her monthly payments, nor had she demonstrated responsible action in regard to her debts. She did not corroborate her claim that some of her debts had been paid, nor did she provide evidence as to the basis of her disputes of other debts. The Judge ultimately concluded that Applicant had failed to meet her burden of persuasion. Applicant cites to evidence concerning her conviction, arguing that it was a one-time occurrence and that she had completed some of her required actions, such as the parenting class. She also cites to other evidence, such as the marital breakup of 2002 and her attendance at financial management classes. To the extent that Applicant is contending that the Judge did not consider this evidence, we note that a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-03433 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 13, 2012). Applicant has not rebutted this presumption, nor has she demonstrated that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board