CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-01755.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-01755.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-01755.a1

Apr 10, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to extensive financial problems and mismanagement. Disqualifying conditions F.3 and F.4 were raised, while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered.

Key issues included multiple bankruptcy filings and a pattern of irresponsible financial decisions. The judge noted the applicant's purchase of a timeshare despite ongoing financial difficulties, which demonstrated a lack of prudent financial management. Furthermore, the applicant failed to adequately address significant debts, including home and vehicle loans, which undermined her claims of mitigation.

Despite a strong work record, the judge concluded that the applicant's failure to resolve her debts and her history of financial mismanagement presented an unacceptable security risk, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.4raisedFinancial Mismanagement

Mitigating

F.2rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Difficulties Were Largely Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe judge acknowledged external circumstances but concluded that the applicant mismanaged her finances.
F.3rejectedThe Applicant Has Made Efforts to Repay DebtsThe judge noted some payments but stated that a bankruptcy filing does not demonstrate a good-faith effort.

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 issuedMar 7, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 29, 2015
Decision dateApr 10, 2015

Cite For

Financial Mismanagement Under Guideline F
Impact of Multiple Bankruptcy Filings on Security Clearance
Consideration of External Circumstances in Financial 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 was filed by the Applicant after the Administrative Judge denied her request for a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and did not adequately consider her circumstances. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's analysis.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowElizabeth M. Matchinski — 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 adverse 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 that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in her analysis of the Applicant's financial situation.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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

1 The SOR is undated. DOHA sent the SOR to Applicant accompanied by a letter dated March 7, 2014. KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge made findings about Applicant’s most recent bankruptcy filing and about her work record. Applicant’s argument that the Judge did not take into account the circumstances surrounding her bankruptcy filing and her excellent work record is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-01755.a1 DATE: 04/10/2015 DATE: April 10, 2015 In Re: -------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-01755 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. 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).1 Applicant requested a hearing. On January 29, 2015, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Elizabeth M. Matchinski 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 decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact In 1991, Applicant was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After that, she and her spouse took out first and second mortgages on a home that they had purchased in 1987. In the mid-2000s, Applicant’s spouse stopped working due to medical disability, as a consequence of which their income dropped. They began falling behind on their mortgage payments and on other debts, such as consumer credit obligations. In completing her security clearance application (SCA), Applicant did not disclose any delinquent debts. During her interview, she stated that she had learned about the mortgage delinquency after completing the SCA. In order to save their home, Applicant and her spouse filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. However, the case was subsequently dismissed at the petitioners’ request. Applicant then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in her own name only. This too was dismissed due to Applicant’s inability to make the payments. Applicant and her spouse have succeeded in modifying their mortgage payments. Applicant subsequently went on family medical leave to care for her spouse. She has incurred medical expenses as a result of his treatment. Among her other debts are a judgment against her to recover the deficiency balance on a repossessed truck and a dental bill that has been sent to collection. In August 2014, Applicant filed again for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. She completed a credit counseling course prior to filing. Applicant’s employment income for the first eight months of 2014 was over $28,000. She also had some unemployment income, and her husband received over $17,000 in Social Security Disability payments. She has no cash on hand, no savings, and no checking deposits. Applicant has an excellent work record, described as a “top-flight employee and an asset to [the] team.” Decision at 7. She enjoys a good reputation for honesty and reliability. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant’s financial problems were more extensive than alleged in the SOR. She considered non-charged debts as part of the whole-person analysis and mitigation. The Judge noted circumstances that were outside Applicant’s control, such as medical problems which limited her and her spouse’s ability to work. However, she concluded that Applicant had mismanaged her finances, including purchasing a timeshare, which the Judge characterized as irresponsible in light of her history of financial difficulties. The Judge gave Applicant credit for paying some of her debts, though stated that a bankruptcy filing in and of itself does not show a good-faith effort to resolve financial problems. In the whole-person analysis the Judge noted evidence that Applicant had issued an insufficient funds check. She stated that, after dismissal of her 2013 bankruptcy filing, Applicant did little to resolve her debts until a year later, when she filed for bankruptcy again. The Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s good work performance. However, she stated that Applicant’s failure to address such important debts as home and vehicle loans undermined her effort to show that she had mitigated the concerns in her case. Discussion Applicant argues that the Judge did not take into account all of the circumstances surrounding her bankruptcy filing, for example that some of her debts have been paid and others are being repaid through the trustee in bankruptcy. She also argues that the Judge did not take into account that she has worked for many years and has an excellent work record. The Judge made findings about Applicant’s most recent bankruptcy filing and about her work record. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Neither has Applicant shown that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01941 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 30, 2015). 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 Ra’anan Michael 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