CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-00703.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-00703.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-00703.a1

Feb 27, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 32-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant delinquent debts totaling $19,000. These debts were attributed to financial irresponsibility following his military service.

The Appeal Board's decision highlighted the applicant's history of not meeting financial obligations. While the applicant did engage in some debt counseling and made minimal payments, these efforts were deemed insufficient and only began recently.

Ultimately, the applicant's financial irresponsibility was directly linked to his unresolved delinquent debts, leading to the denial of his security clearance. Disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 were raised, and while mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns regarding his financial history.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's recent efforts at repayment were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“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 issuedJun 4, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldDec 18, 2013
Decision dateFeb 27, 2014

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Efforts to Mitigate Financial Irresponsibility
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Stability for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 after being denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — 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 Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not err in weighing the evidence or reaching conclusions that were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference 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 Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. A party’s ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence falls short of demonstrating that the Judge’s treatment of the evidence was erroneous. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-00703.a1 DATE: 02/27/2014 DATE: February 27, 2014 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-00703

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 June 4, 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 December 18, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed, pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable security clearance decision. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings: Applicant is 32 years old. He has delinquent debts in the amount of $19,000. Applicant went on a spending spree when he left the military in 2006, and his civilian job effectively paid less than his military salary because of the non-taxable pay and allowances he received as part of his military compensation. His finances were further complicated when he married his pregnant girlfriend and acquired a stepson along with his own son. Applicant engaged debt counseling services and tried to work on his debts on his own, but little progress was made. He began making $50 per month payments to some of his creditors in about November 2012. Applicant recently received a salary increase, but he has not increased his debt payments. He has no retirement account and no savings. He has received no credit or financial counseling. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge reached the following conclusions: Applicant has yet to resolve his delinquent debt. The debt is directly attributable to Applicant’s financial irresponsibility after getting out of the military. He cannot be considered to have acted responsibly in addressing his debts because the debts were due to his own conduct and he did not begin to take effective action until sometime in 2012. While his recent efforts at repayment show some good faith in attempting to resolve those debts, with the exception of one debt, the amount of his payments is insufficient to resolve his debts in the reasonably foreseeable future. Applicant’s budget provides only minimal payments to his debts and he has not received financial counseling. There is no other evidence supporting a favorable clearance action.

DISCUSSION

Applicant argues that his clearance should not have been denied. He states that he was making monthly payments for all his debts to the best of his ability and was completely honest with all parties involved with the case. He states that all of his debts have been settled as of January 8, 2014 as a result of his receipt of a gift of money from his family after the death of his grandfather. Applicant’s brief and several attachments contain evidence that was not part of the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The record in this case closed on September 6, 2013. Applicant focuses on his record of making payments on his debts. The Judge duly acknowledged these efforts. However, the presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06- 25157at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008). As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge made sustainable findings that Applicant had a significant history of not meeting financial obligations. He noted that despite some progress, that trend did not begin until recently and, at the time of the hearing, Applicant still had a significant amount of overdue indebtedness, with no reasonable prospect of retiring the debt for a number of years. Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge erred when he determined that the government’s concerns over Applicant’s financial record were unmitigated. The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes 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 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). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge 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