CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-05959.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-05959.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05959.a1

Apr 6, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, represented by counsel, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to longstanding financial issues. The appeal board affirmed the denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible financial management and insufficient evidence of rehabilitation.

Disqualifying conditions F.2 and F.3 were raised, and while mitigating conditions F.2 and F.3 were considered, they were ultimately not sufficient to overcome the concerns. The applicant had multiple delinquent debts and did not provide adequate evidence of rehabilitation or an understanding of financial responsibilities.

The judge determined that the applicant had not taken responsible action regarding his debts, having ignored financial problems and failed to establish payment plans. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedDelinquent Debts

Mitigating

F.3rejectedThe Conditions That Led to the Financial Problems Were Beyond the Applicant's ControlThe judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate responsible action in regard to his debts.
F.2appliedThe Applicant Has Resolved Some DebtsThe judge resolved two of the five SOR debts in the applicant's favor.

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 issuedJul 10, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 28, 2016
Decision dateApr 6, 2016

Cite For

Affirmation of Denial Based on Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Financial Cases
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Management 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 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 it supported by substantial evidence and properly reasoned.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowDarlene D. Lokey Anderson — 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 contended 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 properly considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her conclusion. The Board concluded that the Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious and complied with the required procedures.

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: We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited. However, each case must be decided on its own merits. This case is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-05959.a1 DATE: 04/06/2016 DATE: April 6, 2016 In Re: ---------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-05959

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 10, 2015, 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 January 28, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson 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’s financial problems go back many years. For example, in the early 1990s, he drove on a suspended license and failed to appear in court in response to warrants. His wages were garnished to pay child support arrears, and in 1996, Applicant turned in a truck he had purchased only 24 hours previously, resulting in a $9,000 deficiency. In addition, Applicant presented evidence that a tenant had damaged one of the houses he owned. His SOR lists five debts, two of which the Judge resolved in Applicant’s favor. The three that the Judge found against him included two default judgments pertaining to the damaged rental property mentioned above and a foreclosure on a time share. These three debts were outstanding at the close of the record. In addition to the SOR debts, Applicant has delinquent mortgage accounts and medical bills that had been sent to collection. Applicant is separated from his third wife and is supporting two minor children. Applicant’s current supervisor describes his work performance as “phenomenal.” Decision at 4. He enjoys a good reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness. The Judge’s Analysis As stated above, the Judge resolved two of the five SOR debts in Applicant’s favor. For the remaining three, she concluded that he had not submitted enough evidence to demonstrate rehabilitation. She stated that he does not have a “concrete understanding of his financial responsibilities and has not sufficiently addressed his delinquent debts in the SOR.” Id. at 6-7. The Judge cited to evidence that some of Applicant’s difficulties may have arisen from circumstances outside his control. However, she concluded that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to his debts. She stated that he ignored his problems, spent money that he did not have, and set up no payment plans. The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions fully applied.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider all of the evidence in the record. Among other things, he cites to his having resolved two of the SOR debts, his professional reputation, the circumstances underlying his debts, etc. The Judge made findings about the evidence that Applicant has cited and addressed it in her Analysis. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06093 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2015). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant has cited. However, each case must be decided on its own merits. This case is not sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 2015). The Judge’s whole person analysis complies with the requirements of Directive ¶ 6.3, in that she considered the totality of the evidence in reaching her decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-02806 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 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 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