CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-10612.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-10612.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-10612.a1

Sep 5, 2013· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military service member and federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to numerous delinquent debts and a lack of credibility regarding his financial situation. The applicant had accumulated multiple outstanding debts, including medical expenses and credit card balances.

During the review process, the applicant provided inconsistent statements concerning his financial obligations, which significantly undermined his credibility. The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties were a result of lavish spending habits rather than circumstances beyond his control.

Given these findings, specifically the presence of numerous delinquent debts and the applicant's inconsistent explanations, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial 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 issuedFeb 6, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 5, 2013
Decision dateSep 5, 2013

Cite For

Inconsistent Statements Undermining Credibility Under Guideline F
Financial Issues Stemming From Lavish Spending Habits Rather Than Uncontrollable Circumstances
Deference to a Judge's Credibility Determination in 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 seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not rebut the presumption that all evidence was considered and that the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowFrancisco Mendez — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision based on the substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination and the applicant's failure to demonstrate 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

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: Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. We defer to a Judge’s credibility determination. Applicant’s inconsistent statements supported the Judge’s adverse credibility determination. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-10612.a1 DATE: 09/05/2013 DATE: September 5, 2013 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-10612

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On February 6, 2013, DoD 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 July 5, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Francisco Mendez 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant served in the military from 1982 to 2002. He has worked for Federal contractors since 2003 and has worked for the same employer since 2008. He has received an excellent performance rating at work. The Judge found that Applicant has numerous delinquent debts for medical expenses, phone services, Federal income tax, credit cards, etc. Although Applicant claimed to have paid or settled many of these debts, he provided no corroboration. Applicant was discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 1999. In 2008 and 2011 he filed again under Chapter 13, but both filings were dismissed due to lack of payment. Applicant has attributed his financial problems to a period of unemployment after he had retired from the military and to a divorce. The Judge noted evidence that, in 2009, Applicant took a week-long trip to the Caribbean to play in a poker tournament. The Judge’s findings cited to numerous instances of inconsistent statements made by Applicant in the course of the processing of his clearance application. For example, the Judge found that Applicant had stopped paying on a personal loan in the amount of $7,359. At the hearing, Applicant claimed that this debt had been cancelled by the creditor. However, in an interview, Applicant had stated that the creditor would not work with him and that he had included this debt in his bankruptcy plan. Applicant submitted no documentary proof of payment, and the debt remained on Applicant’s credit report at the close of the record. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s circumstances raised concerns under Guideline F. He stated that, despite having the means to pay, Applicant had failed to follow through with the repayment schedules set forth in his bankruptcy plans. He stated that Applicant spends beyond his means and refuses to satisfy obligations he freely entered into in the past. The Judge concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate mitigation. He stated that, although Applicant asserted that his problems arose from circumstances beyond his control, “the record is replete with evidence that his financial problems are related to his lavish spending habits . . .” Decision at 7. Although Applicant received counseling during the course of his bankruptcy filings, the Judge concluded that the counseling had exerted no appreciable effect. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant’s hearing testimony was less than credible. He stated that the inconsistencies among Applicant’s various statements were not the result of faulty memory or poor record keeping but were deliberate attempts to mislead. “Consequently, I am left with substantial doubts about his continued eligibility for access to classified information.” Id. at 8 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to record evidence of his unemployment and his divorce. He also notes that he has held a clearance for many years without incident or concern, that he has received counseling, and that he has done a good job at his office. The Judge made findings about the evidence Applicant has cited. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-04413 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 16, 2012). Applicant states that he was truthful in responding to questions. We construe this as challenging the Judge’s adverse credibility determination. We give deference to a Judge’s credibility determinations. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. We have compared the Judge’s findings with the record evidence. Many of Applicant’s claims at the hearing about debt resolution were not totally consistent with claims he had made during his clearance interview. The Judge’s conclusion that these inconsistencies were deliberate is supportable based on the record that was before him. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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 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