CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-01977.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-01977.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-01977.a1

Dec 30, 2013· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

This security clearance application, filed by a retired military service member, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts. The judge identified disqualifying conditions related to overdue debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations.

While some debts were eventually resolved, the applicant's overall financial conduct remained a concern. A negative income-to-expenditure ratio indicated a persistent lack of financial responsibility. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide evidence of seeking financial counseling or establishing a consistent plan to address the outstanding debts.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions, the judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated financial responsibility. Consequently, the security clearance was denied, with the decision emphasizing the importance of financial stability for national security interests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 20(c)raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe judge found that the applicant's financial situation did not demonstrate responsible action regarding debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's evidence of a debt repayment plan was insufficient to mitigate the financial concerns.

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 issuedJun 4, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 29, 2013Decision on written record.
Decision dateDec 30, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Based on Unresolved Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of National Security Interests in Clearance Decisions

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 Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the applicant's financial situation.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJoan Caton Anthony — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided onthe written record

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 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 reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Jeffrey D. Billett
Jean E. Smallin
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 has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed CASENO: 12-01977.a1 DATE: 12/30/2013 DATE: December 30, 2013 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-01977

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 decision on the written record. On October 29, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Joan Caton Anthony 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 Applicant served with the U.S. military for 20 years, retiring in 1993. He is presently employed by a Government contractor and is seeking a security clearance in connection with his job. Of the six delinquent debts alleged in the SOR, the Judge resolved three against Applicant.1 These three were for collection or charged-off accounts. He told the investigator that his wife had managed the family finances and, in 2010, she spent more than the couple earned. She contacted a debt repayment firm and entered into a contract with them to resolve the couple’s financial problems. Applicant told the investigator that he was not aware of the status of the debts being resolved by this plan. He did provide corroboration for his claim to be participating in such a plan, along with documents showing cleared payments to the firm. Applicant and his wife have a total net monthly income of $6,727, although their debt and expense payments exceed their income by $671. They have real estate assets of $225,000, a savings account worth $8,000, cars and boats worth $25,000, and savings of $101,000 in a 401(k) account. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s financial situation raised concerns under Guideline F. As stated above, she resolved three of the allegations in Applicant’s favor. In explaining why she concluded that Applicant had failed to mitigate the remaining debts, she cited to evidence that they are unresolved, as well as to the absence of financial counseling. The Judge stated that Applicant’s negative income to expenditure ratio demonstrated a lack of responsibility and that Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he has the resources to make consistent payments on his delinquent debts. Although the Judge noted evidence of circumstances outside Applicant’s control that affected his financial problems (tenants unable to pay rent, loss of overtime opportunities, and a son’s loss of employment, which impaired the son’s ability to assist in mortgage payments), she concluded that his circumstances overall did not demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has attached evidence to his brief, some of which was included in the record, for example documents pertaining to the contract with the debt repayment company. He argues that he is current on the debts that formed the basis of the Judge’s adverse decision. To the extent that Applicant is contending that the Judge either failed to consider this evidence or failed properly to weigh it, we resolve these issues adversely to Applicant. The Judge made findings about the debt repayment plan and discussed the evidence in the Analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-08831 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 6, 2013). Moreover, a disagreement with a Judge’s weighing of the evidence or the ability to argue for an alternative interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-13626 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2013). Some of the evidence Applicant has cited was not contained in the record, for example a statement by his son regarding the amount he contributed to the mortgage. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

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: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 The Judge resolved three allegations of delinquent debts, along with another citing to a 2004 discharge in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, in Applicant’s favor.