CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 13-00137.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 13-00137.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00137.a1

Apr 4, 2014· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts. The appeal board affirmed this denial, citing the applicant's failure to demonstrate responsible action regarding his financial obligations and lack of evidence for financial counseling.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide proof of a repayment agreement for his delinquent debt. Despite being aware of the security implications of his debts since 2010, he failed to take adequate steps to resolve them.

While the applicant's financial condition was affected by circumstances outside his control, he did not sufficiently address the outstanding debts. The board concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the disqualifying conditions related to his financial situation, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

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 2, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 24, 2014
Decision dateApr 4, 2014

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Regarding Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Suitability
Standard for Granting Security Clearances in Relation to National Security Interests

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 after being 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 decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJames F. Duffy — 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 responsible action regarding his financial situation. The applicant's new evidence was not considered as it was not part of the record.

Standard of review applied

No new evidence on appealSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 relies on new evidence which the Board cannot consider. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 13-00137.a1 DATE: 04/04/2014 DATE: April 4, 2014 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 13-00137

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 July 2, 2013, 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 January 24, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge James F. Duffy 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. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E and for one of the Guideline F allegations are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant has worked for his current employer, a Federal contractor, since April 2012. He has held a security clearance in the past. The SOR alleged two delinquent debts, one of which the Judge resolved adversely to Applicant. This was for a loan that Applicant had obtained in 2006 in order to pay for rent and food during a period of unemployment. While working in support of U.S. military objectives overseas Applicant lost contact with the creditor. However, he stated that he recently entered into a repayment agreement whereby he would make four payments of $3,095 a month for four months. He made one such payment but made no others, due to a reduction in income and payment of college loans for his children. He stated that the creditor agreed to accept a lump sum payment of $6,300 and that he would make this payment in December 2013. He did not provide proof of this arrangement or of any payment made thereunder. In 2010, a central adjudication facility (CAF) granted Applicant a security clearance conditioned on resolving this debt.1 In 2012, this CAF suspended Applicant’s access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI) due to his failure to have done so. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to evidence that Applicant’s financial condition was affected by circumstances outside his control, such as unemployment. However, the Judge concluded that Applicant had not demonstrated responsible action in regard to the delinquent loan discussed above. He stated that Applicant had not presented evidence of financial counseling. Moreover, the Judge noted evidence that Applicant had been on notice of the security significance of this debt since 2010, but he did not address it despite having the financial means to do so. In the whole-person analysis the Judge acknowledged evidence that Applicant had performed duties in support of U.S. military objectives overseas. He stated, however, that Applicant’s failure to address the debt at issue here left him with doubts about Applicant’s suitability for a clearance.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his statement about an agreement to resolve his remaining debt with a lump sum payment. In doing so, he provides evidence not contained in the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. See ISCR Case No. 12-00703 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 27, 2014). He argues that the record supports a conclusion that he has made plans to resolve the debt. The Judge’s finding that Applicant did not corroborate the terms of a repayment agreement is not undermined by Applicant’s appeal argument. Moreover, the Judge’s finding that Applicant neglected to address this debt when granted a conditional clearance in 2010 supports his conclusion that Applicant failed to demonstrate responsible action in regard to his financial situation.

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

FOOTNOTES

1 DOHA does not have authority to issue a conditional clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-02441 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2013). Applicant’s conditional clearance was granted by another agency.