CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-09391.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-09391.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-09391.a1

Aug 5, 2013· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance primarily under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from unresolved delinquent debts totaling $17,881, largely from credit cards.

The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of payments or corroborate his claims of having resolved these debts. Despite the application of mitigating conditions, the judge concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate a consistent track record of responsible financial management.

Consequently, the applicant did not overcome the security concerns raised by his financial history, leading to the affirmation of the adverse decision and the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 21(a)rejectedThe Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's financial issues were ongoing and unresolved.
AG ¶ 21(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant's efforts to address debts were insufficient and not corroborated.
AG ¶ 21(c)rejectedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant did not demonstrate a track record of debt resolution.

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 issuedAug 24, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldApr 30, 2013
Decision dateAug 5, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution Efforts
Affirmation of Adverse Decisions Based on Lack of Financial Responsibility

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 it supported by substantial evidence and properly reasoned.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowThomas M. Crean — 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 Judge properly considered the evidence presented by the Applicant. The Board concluded that the Judge's findings were not arbitrary or capricious and that the decision was consistent with national security interests.

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 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: Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 12-09391.a1 DATE: 08/05/2013 DATE: August 5, 2013 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-09391

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 August 24, 2012, 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 30, 2013, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Thomas M. Crean 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 In 2008, Applicant experienced financial problems due to the economic downturn. His income was cut in half, and his monthly bills exceeded his income. He has delinquent debts totaling $17,881, mostly from credit cards. He hired a credit counseling law firm but, after an additional drop in income, he decided to address his financial problems himself. Applicant has presented evidence of settlement agreements for three of his debts, but he has not presented evidence of payments. Moreover, he has not corroborated his claims to have paid or arrived at settlement agreements for other debts. In the Analysis, the Judge noted the effect that the economic slump had on Applicant’s finances. However, he concluded that Applicant had failed to demonstrate responsible action regarding his debts or to demonstrate a track record of debt resolution.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his evidence of debt resolution. The Judge discussed that evidence in his decision, but he plausibly explained why he concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to meet Applicant’s burden of persuasion as to mitigation. Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-09329 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 18, 2013). 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