CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-07001.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-07001.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-07001.a1

May 16, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military member and current defense contractor was denied a security clearance primarily due to financial considerations under Guideline F, specifically unresolved debts totaling approximately $24,000. The applicant's financial issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20.

While the applicant attended financial counseling and proposed a payment plan, these actions were not deemed sufficient to mitigate the concerns. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 21(a), AG ¶ 21(c), and AG ¶ 21(d), but ultimately found that the applicant lacked a demonstrated track record of debt resolution.

The denial was affirmed on appeal, with the judge emphasizing that future promises to resolve debts do not substitute for actual, established resolution. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial problems originated in 2004 and 2005.
AG ¶ 21(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Received Counseling
AG ¶ 21(d)rejectedThe Applicant Has a Plan to Repay DebtsThe judge noted that the applicant had not taken significant steps to implement the payment plan.

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 issuedJan 26, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 29, 2016
Decision dateMay 16, 2016

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Counseling on Security Clearance Decisions
Importance of a Track Record in Debt Repayment for Mitigating Financial Concerns

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 brought by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowEdward W. Loughran — 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 conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the Judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in weighing the evidence.

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
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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: A disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt resolution sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from his financial problems is sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-07001.a1 DATE: 05/16/2016 DATE: May 16, 2016 In Re: -------.

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-07001

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 January 26, 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 March 29, 2016, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran 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 in the military from 1996 to 2002, after which he worked for Defense contractors. His current employer hired him in 2011. His financial problems originated in 2004 and 2005, due to his day-to-day living expenses. He stated that he was “young, stupid, and did not live within his means.” Decision at 2. He hired a bankruptcy attorney, who advised him to stop paying his bills because they would be covered in the bankruptcy plan. However, Applicant did not file, and his debts went unpaid. The SOR alleges debts totaling about $24,000. Applicant has paid two, that have a combined total of about $700. The remainder are unresolved. The debts were for medical treatment, a loan for a truck, etc. After the hearing, Applicant submitted a plan to pay his debts. It requires him to pay over $260 a month for seven years. In addition, Applicant showed that he had paid two debts that were not alleged in the SOR. Applicant has attended a financial counseling course and plans to take another one through his church. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge resolved in Applicant’s favor the two debts that he demonstrated that he had paid. However, he entered adverse findings for the remainder. He cited to DOHA precedent to the effect that promises to resolve debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of debt resolution.1 Although Applicant has a payment plan, he has not taken significant steps to implement the plan.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief, in essence, consists of a challenge to the manner in which he Judge weighed the evidence. However, a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not enough to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). The Judge’s conclusion that Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt resolution sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from his financial problems is sustainable. 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-04565 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2015).