CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-08417.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-08417.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-08417.a1

Jun 24, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A former military member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had several delinquent debts and misused a government credit card, which were identified as disqualifying conditions.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence of payment plans for his outstanding debts. Additionally, the applicant's military discharge for misconduct negatively impacted the case, contributing to the overall assessment of personal conduct.

Ultimately, the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance. The decision underscored the importance of national security in such determinations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

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 issuedMay 9, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 15, 2015
Decision dateJun 24, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Corroborating Evidence in Mitigating Security 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 involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations and personal conduct issues. 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 or conclusions reached by the Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline E

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 findings were arbitrary or capricious. The Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision based on the evidence presented.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-08417.a1 DATE: 06/24/2015 DATE: June 24, 2015 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-08417

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 May 9, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On April 15, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch 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 U.S. military, from which he was discharged with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General) for misconduct. He has several delinquent debts, and, in addition, he misused a Government credit card and uttered a check without sufficient funds. For this last incident he was fined. He told his clearance interviewer that he misused the Government card on two separate occasions. He received non-judicial punishment, consisting of a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay. Applicant stated that he had paid several of his debts and had entered into a payment plan for others, although the Judge found that he had provided no corroborating evidence. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge stated that Applicant had provided no reason for his delinquent debts and that he had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to them. She stated that he has known about the debts since 2012 but produced no documentation of a plan to resolve the majority of them. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge cited to evidence of Applicant’s having been discharged from the military with a General discharge, as well as to his disciplinary actions while in the service. She reiterated her observation that Applicant had not corroborated his claim to have entered into payments plans. She also noted that there is no evidence in the record to show that Applicant paid the fine that was imposed on him due to the bad check offense.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to some Hearing Office cases that he believes are similar to his and in which the applicants received clearances. We have given these cases due consideration. However, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03223 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 17, 2015). The cases that Applicant has cited have significant differences from his own. They are not enough to show that the Judge erred in her adverse decision. Applicant argues that the Judge did not consider all of the relevant and material information. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in the record. Applicant has not rebutted this presumption, nor has he shown that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01578 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2014). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, both as to the mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 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