CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-10758.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-10758.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-10758.a1

May 21, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial instability. The applicant had five unpaid judgments and five collection accounts, totaling approximately $29,489. These issues raised disqualifying condition F.3.

While the applicant attributed his financial problems to unemployment, he failed to present a credible or realistic plan for resolving his debts. The judge characterized his proposed plan as speculative, and the appeal board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's financial situation presented unmitigated security concerns.

Despite the potential applicability of mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3, the applicant's inability to demonstrate a viable path to financial responsibility led to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.
F.3rejectedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Plan for Debt RepaymentThe applicant's plan was deemed speculative and unrealistic.

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 issuedOct 1, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 14, 2013
Decision dateMay 21, 2013

Cite For

Financial Instability Under Guideline F
Failure to Present a Credible Debt Resolution Plan
Impact of Adverse Decisions on Clearance Eligibility Is Not Relevant

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 financial issues under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge did not consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the denial, finding the Judge's decision sustainable based on the record.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMichael H. Leonard — 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge did not consider all of the record evidence.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the clearance.

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 F DIGEST: The adverse impact of a security clearance decision is not relevant in evaluating clearance eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 11-10758.a1 DATE: 05/21/2013 DATE: May 21, 2013 In Re: ---------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-10758

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 October 1, 2012, 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 March 14, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard 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 adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has five unpaid judgments and five collection or charged off accounts, totaling about $29,489. He has a lengthy history of financial problems, which he attributes to periods of unemployment and underemployment. Both he and his wife have been laid off from jobs during the past ten years. He defaulted on a mortgage, but the lender agreed to a modification, and Applicant is now in good standing regarding this debt. He also paid off two other debts by means of garnishment. These debts were not alleged in the SOR. Concerning those debts that were alleged, Applicant has neither paid, settled, or resolved any of them. He has made payment on one of them, through garnishment. However, the debt was not paid off because Applicant left his job, and the garnishment did not follow him to his subsequent employment. His plan to address his debts is to contact creditors, beginning with the smaller debts, and pay them off as quickly as possible. The Judge’s Analysis Concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised Guideline F concerns, the Judge was not able to extend favorable application to any of the mitigating conditions. He stated that Applicant has not established a plan to pay off his debts and that he offered no details on how he proposed to resolve them. The Judge characterized Applicant’s plan for debt resolution as “speculative and unrealistic.” Decision at 7. The Judge stated that garnishment is not the same as a good-faith effort to pay off debt because it is involuntary.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence that some of his debts had been repaid and that he is current on his mortgage. He takes issue with the Judge’s treatment of his garnishment actions, insofar as these actions did result in debt satisfaction. He also cites to evidence of his good character, such as his volunteer activities in the community. A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09329 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2013). The Judge addressed Applicant’s having resolved some of his debts, including his mortgage. However, considering the record as a whole, the Judge’s overall decision is sustainable. We note the Judge’s comments that Applicant had failed to articulate a credible plan of debt resolution. These comments were consistent with the record before him. Moreover, we find no reason to conclude that the Judge weighed the evidence, including the evidence of the garnishment actions, in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-08087 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 5, 2013). Applicant notes the effect that a clearance denial may have upon his employment. However, the adverse impact of an unfavorable decision is not relevant in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-23613 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2013). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. 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 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